# Can Britain be invaded?



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2011)

How? Or no?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 11, 2011)

The Romans and the Danes managed.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How? Or no?


who?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> The Romans and the Danes managed.


 
Yes, i clearly meant could it have happened. Hence the question can it?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 12, 2011)

Of course it can and it has been.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jun 12, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> The Romans and the Danes managed.



The Dutch also popped over as well.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 12, 2011)

19sixtysix said:


> The Dutch also popped over as well.


 
They couldn't be bothered to actually land, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Of course it can and it has been.


 
Can your front door be forced?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2011)

no surrender to whoever it is


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can your front door be forced?


No! Front doors are entitled to their own free will.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Or maybe it's lived through various conditions, contexts and situations. Too obvious eh l_c?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2011)

Not too obvious, no.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Yes, it takes a bit of thought. Now you know.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jun 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> They couldn't be bothered to actually land, though.



They did land troops but decided not to bother staying.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 12, 2011)

ah i thought they'd just sailed up the thames and back down again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Of course it can and it has been.


 
How and who?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 12, 2011)

No chance.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 12, 2011)

Any invaders'd be repelled long before they reached Walmington-on Sea.


----------



## ymu (Jun 12, 2011)

Yes, obviously it can.

What is this crap?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 12, 2011)

successfully invaded?


----------



## ymu (Jun 12, 2011)

Yes, obviously it can.

What is this crap?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 12, 2011)

It can but it may not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes, obviously it can.
> 
> What is this crap?


 
it's an oblique point made about historical analysis and the simplicity of that displayed herein. I think.

Anyway, you could take britain relatively simply but holding it is going to be the problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes, obviously it can.
> 
> What is this crap?


How? Who?  Not by annoyed brats mind, Real stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> it's an oblique point made about historical analysis and the simplicity of that displayed herein. I think.
> 
> Anyway, you could take britain relatively simply but holding it is going to be the problem.


Two stupid points for the price of one.

How? Who?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> it's an oblique point made about historical analysis and the simplicity of that displayed herein. I think.
> 
> Anyway, you could take britain relatively simply but holding it is going to be the problem.


 
You're really getting ideas.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 12, 2011)

i reckon anybody could take london. if the faroe islands invaded, the cockney shitouts would hand it over without a fight.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2011)

fuck off disco, the city would easily hold up for five weeks or more. Nobody in the black country would even go toe to toe it would be all sugared petrol tanks and sentries throttled as they slept


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Two stupid points for the price of one.
> 
> How? Who?


 
perhaps captain kronen could take london while Sir Burg pacifies the scots, bouyed forth on a foamy wave.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can your front door be forced?


 
Yup


----------



## discokermit (Jun 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> fuck off disco, the city would easily hold up for five weeks or more. Nobody in the black country would even go toe to toe it would be all sugared petrol tanks and sentries throttled as they slept


 five minutes, tops.

the black country wouldn't have to go toe to toe. the invaders would be so depressed at the sight of birmingham they wouldn't bother going any further.


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> The Romans and the Danes managed.


They had their work cut out with the Celts though.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 12, 2011)

editor said:


> They had their work cut out with the Celts though.


no they didn't. not really.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)

19sixtysix said:


> The Dutch also popped over as well.


 
Someone forgotten the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans too.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 12, 2011)

The Normans really took the piss - insisted on bringing over French stone to build their castles. 

Now I think about it, didn't the Romans import special volcanic ash for their concrete ?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2011)

As we've seen, the point isn't the taking it's the holding. National defence these days should be based on teaching adults how to make and deploy IEDs - basically all you need.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> The Normans really took the piss - insisted on bringing over French stone to build their castles.
> 
> Now I think about it, didn't the Romans import special volcanic ash for their concrete ?


 
I think they used Portland.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

I'm glad that i asked if Britian has ever been invaded.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 12, 2011)

Why would you want to... Sure there are much nicer places and we don't have any oil.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)




----------



## weltweit (Jun 12, 2011)

Of course the French are already invading. 

Through the channel sur la manche ... 

They come directly to the centre of our capital. 

Luckily they may be put off by the names on the sights they are immediately confronted with, Waterloo station, Trafalgar Square etc  

Bluddy frogs


----------



## Badgers (Jun 12, 2011)

Who would we want to invade?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 12, 2011)

Shortly after 1066 I think there were just four English Lords remaining out of several hundred, the rest being French. More English sub-tenants and of course there wasn't an influx of French peasants.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 12, 2011)

Why break down the door when you've been invited in?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

I'm glad that i asked has Britain ever invaded anywhere else as well.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why break down the door when you've been invited in?



Rascist!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm glad that i asked has Britain ever invaded anywhere else as well.


 
Eh? There is a country that runs military bases from Britain, hence its bright red colour on that map. We have been invaded already.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Eh? There is a country that runs military bases from Britain, hence its bright red colour on that map. We have been invaded already.


 Don't be daft. A ruling class having shared interests with the hegemonic power is not invasion. It's bog standard accommodation and tactics.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jun 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> As we've seen, the point isn't the taking it's the holding. National defence these days should be based on teaching adults how to make and deploy IEDs - basically all you need.



Churchhill had realised that and planned his resistance with the  Auxiliary Units


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't be daft. A ruling class having shared interests with the hegemonic power is not invasion. It's bog standard accommodation and tactics.


 
It's not so daft. Anyone else who tried to invade Britain would, as things stand, face a US-led resistance. The US are here already. How many British troops are there in the USA? 

If you don't think the US bases constitute invasion, then the answer to your question is 'no'. Invaded by whom?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not so daft. Anyone else who tried to invade Britain would, as things stand, face a US-led resistance. The US are here already. How many British troops are there in the USA?
> 
> If you don't think the US bases constitute invasion, then the answer to your question is 'no'. Invaded by whom?



Ah you've re-fashioned your original answer ( it's already happened) into no it couldn't happen. Nice footwork.

Now you start to at least talk about about my original question. No, US bases do not constitute invasion. Invasion means feet on the ground and real control (legal, military and so on) of the overwhelming majority of areas by direct control or via puppet regimes for many years - as the norm in fact. So no, US base do not constitute invasion - except in polemical shouty terms.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 12, 2011)

Have we every had a thread about what would have happened if the Nazi regime had succeeded ?

As in, supposing it had defeated the Russians - or at least kept them at bay and forced a ceasefire.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 12, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> Have we every had a thread about what would have happened if the Nazi regime had succeeded ?
> 
> As in, supposing it had defeated the Russians - or at least kept them at bay and forced a ceasefire.


 
We wouldn't "all be speaking German" that's for sure.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 12, 2011)

Operation sea lion the nazi invasion of britain was planned by an over optimistic German who was pissed on the back of a fag packet.As such it was doomed to failure.
 They wargamed it at sanderhurst in the 70s with some of the Generals who would have fought it.Even allowing the Germans free passage across the channel which was an impossbility.The Royal Navy plan was to steam through the invasion fleet guns blazing not something the Germans could stop.
  They were soundly thrashed simply didn't land enough troops and tanks to get the job done.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 12, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> Have we every had a thread about what would have happened if the Nazi regime had succeeded ?
> 
> As in, supposing it had defeated the Russians - or at least kept them at bay and forced a ceasefire.


 
It happened here


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 12, 2011)

Good question. 

Not sure if anyone would want to invade britain with ground troops and established control though, and even if they did they probably wouldn't be capable of it at the moment. who'd want to? 

As for whether it could be invaded now, to be honest, yeah, I do think it could, dunno about successfuly, not sure how our infrastructure and command structures of the army etc could withstand that or whether they'd last long before surrendering. 

so yeah i do think britain could be invaded, but fortunately there's not many people with both the ability and the desire to do it at the moment. 

(sorry for the crap answer)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 12, 2011)

What is the point of this thread?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2011)

unless you had air superiority you aren't getting to land a force of numbers big enough to take england, let alone the other kingdoms. And wales.as we are under the aegis of the worlds strongest and most dominant superpower on the globe, resting planes that cost more to fuel than I earn in a year in nuff bases


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is the point of this thread?


 
To ask if Britannia can be invaded. How? What conditions need apply and so on. Sorry if you fucked up your own irrelevant posts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 12, 2011)

Shit thread.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is the point of this thread?



It would offer a handy crowdsourced resource to an enemy power and save them a lot of time otherwise spent on reconnaissance.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 12, 2011)

Lay seige with submarines and force surrender maybe or mass immigration of loads of Muslim natch. No Surrender!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Shit thread.


 
Thanks for you help. You first off got the question wrong - then offered your own reasons why you were wrong . Then the feet started stamping. And the failing was then found to not be yours.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Shit thread.


To ask if Britannia can be invaded. How? What conditions need apply and so on. 

Why is this a shit thread? Because you fucked up your replies? Does the question of if and how Britain might be invaded have no worth once you've cast your irrelevant pearls? You've talked and it's finished? It's over. You arrogant cunt.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To ask if Britannia can be invaded. How? What conditions need apply and so on.
> 
> Why is this a shit thread? Because you fucked up your replies? Does the question of if and how Britain might be invaded have no worth once you've cast your irrelevant pearls? You've talked and it's finished? It's over. You arrogant cunt.



This isn't the Tolling Gang.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> This isn't the Tolling Gang.



Well spotted. To ask if Britannia can be invaded. How? What conditions need apply and so on. If you don't want to play then fine - join the list of people saying _but we have been invaded, we are invaded  we have invaded_. Thanks Yossarian. Thanks for your thoughtful post.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well spotted. To ask if Britannia can be invaded. How? What conditions need apply and so on. If you don't want to play then fine - join the list of people saying _but we have been invaded, we are invaded  we have invaded_. Thanks Yossarian. Thanks for your thoughtful post.


 
Wind your neck in and ask a better question and maybe you'll get better answers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

From you? No, i wouldn't. Do the people who want to talk about this a favour - keep walking.


----------



## Edie (Jun 12, 2011)

Not currently cos our Allies would kick their arses with us. Plus like froggy said there would be no reason to.

Maybe in the future the Chinese may need a strategic base for nuclear weapon launching covering Europe.

Have to admit to not really knowing anything about nuclear weapons, war or China


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 12, 2011)

Yes, Britain _could_ (theoretically) be invaded.  Whether successfully is another question.  By invasion, I'm assuming you mean troop landings, rather than airstrikes.  The obvious bridgepoint would be the Channel, but that's probably what makes it the worst.  A less densely populated coast might be better.  The Western Highlands have a very long coast, with lots of sea inlets.  And invasion fleet could get ashore there. Who are they, and where are they coming from, though?  If they come from the south, they're going to be spotted on most approaches, unless the move fast and come round the west of Ireland.  Norway could invade by coming round the north, between Orkney and Shetland.  Not sure _why_ they would, though.  I can't actually think of any potential aggressor that would invade.  (As opposed to bomb or otherwise attack).  

The trouble with the West Highlands is that you could theoretically land an army, but where is it going to go?  It could occupy the Glens, and keep the UK military busy for a long time, but to what end?  The Glasgow conurbation isn't far from the West Highlands, but I suppose the more strategically important target would be Faslane.  That isn't going to be easy to get to, though; that's (one reason) why it's there.

So the questions that remain are: who would invade, and why?


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> From you? No, i wouldn't. Do the people who want to talk about this a favour - keep walking.


 
Because this thread is jam-packed with people who take you, your stupidly open-ended question, and your pissy replies seriously.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, Britain _could_ (theoretically) be invaded.  Whether successfully is another question.  By invasion, I'm assuming you mean troop landings, rather than airstrikes.  The obvious bridgepoint would be the Channel, but that's probably what makes it the worst.  A less densely populated coast might be better.  The Western Highlands have a very long coast, with lots of sea inlets.  And invasion fleet could get ashore there. Who are they, and where are they coming from, though?  If they come from the south, they're going to be spotted on most approaches, unless the move fast and come round the west of Ireland.  Norway could invade by coming round the north, between Orkney and Shetland.  Not sure _why_ they would, though.  I can't actually think of any potential aggressor that would invade.  (As opposed to bomb or otherwise attack).
> 
> The trouble with the West Highlands is that you could theoretically land an army, but where is it going to go?  It could occupy the Glens, and keep the UK military busy for a long time, but to what end?  The Glasgow conurbation isn't far from the West Highlands, but I suppose the more strategically important target would be Faslane.  That isn't going to be easy to get to, though; that's (one reason) why it's there.
> 
> So the questions that remain are: who would invade, and why?



That's half the question danny, what situation would allow there to be these landings (success or not not aside). And, if given optimum conditions (or any variant  - hence the thread) what would likely happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> Because this thread is jam-packed with people who take you, your stupidly open-ended question, and your pissy replies seriously.



Fuck me and my open ended question. Only closely formulated axiomatic questions will yossarain dare attempt. Is the answer 5 yoss? Is it? Is it really?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)

Nice weather.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 12, 2011)

Whose the enemy and where they are coming from and with what? We have some very capable weapon systems so you better have state of the art weapons or your not going to acheive much.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Whose the enemy and where they are coming from and with what? We have some very capable weapon systems so you better have state of the art weapons or your not going to acheive much.


 
How can be britain be invaded? (Is that too open ended?) What are the weak points? (is there not enough closure in that question?) What would you look at if you were planning an invasion?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)

This reminds me of that chap, not Nemo or nomoney, some lad who just posted up questions all the time.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's half the question danny, what situation would allow there to be these landings (success or not not aside). And, if given optimum conditions (or any variant  - hence the thread) what would likely happen.


Asking who has invaded in the past is relevant, then.  Because why Britain _hasn't_ been invaded since then is of interest in the question.  Hitler planned to but didn't, because he was too occupied on too many fronts.  Before that, what?  Fishguard?  Not serious.  Then the Armada, serious, but disastrous, attempt.  And then 1066.  So pretty infrequent, really.  Why's that?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Asking who has invaded in the past is relevant, then.  Because why Britain _hasn't_ been invaded since then is of interest in the question.  Hitler planned to but didn't, because he was too occupied on too many fronts.  Before that, what?  Fishguard?  Not serious.  Then the Armada, serious, but disastrous, attempt.  And then 1066.  So pretty infrequent, really.  Why's that?


 
Wolfe Tone godammit!


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 12, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> This reminds me of that chap, not Nemo or nomoney, some lad who just posted up questions all the time.



What, a bit like you ?

Who rarely admits to his own position in the threads he starts ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Asking who has invaded in the past is relevant, then.  Because why Britain _hasn't_ been invaded since then is of interest in the question.  Hitler planned to but didn't, because he was too occupied on too many fronts.  Before that, what?  Fishguard?  Not serious.  Then the Armada, serious, but disastrous, attempt.  And then 1066.  So pretty infrequent, really.  Why's that?


 
Of course it's relevant. Simply saying that it has been invaded and listing the dates is worthless though (not that they bothered doing that or expanding on who/where.how). Utterly worthless. The past problems are one of the things i hoped we could talk about on this great thread, and what problems they might pose in the future.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck me and my open ended question. Only closely formulated axiomatic questions will yossarain dare attempt. Is the answer 5 yoss? Is it? Is it really?


 


You put up a 3-word OP with 2 questions in it and when asked to clarify, acted like you were doing the dance of 7 veils.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> What, a bit like you ?
> 
> Who rarely admits to his own position in the threads he starts ?


 
Go and wash up you tramp.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> You put up a 3-word OP with 2 questions in it and when asked to clarify, acted like you were doing the dance of 7 veils.


 
Or, you're too thick too understand the implications of those questions. 20 hours later you're still crying. Go away. Don't answer the thick man and his thick questions. Easy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

> a 3-word OP with 2 questions in it



Run away!!!


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How can be britain be invaded? (Is that too open ended?) What are the weak points? (is there not enough closure in that question?) What would you look at if you were planning an invasion?


 
  Logistics if your coming from france its pretty easy if it further away you have problems.First you need air superiority which going up against typhoon with awacs support is going to be a problem.Then you need to clear out the royal navy and especially the submarines as they will sink your ships.Then you can land and fight your way ashore bring
lots of modern tanks and anti tank weapons challanger II is very good and we have lots of them.
  Weakness in british forces is numbers.Advantages the place is small so pretty easy to drive to where ever you land and the military is hi tech and well trained.And the population will hate you.If you haven't the resources of the USA think again.That's without the uks nukes and whatever porton down can cook up.If we were facing invasion pretty sure we could get some nasty gases and germs together international law can go fuck itself.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 12, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Wolfe Tone godammit!


OK, Wolfe Tone goes in, too.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or, you're too thick too understand the implications of those questions. 20 hours later you're still crying. Go away. Don't answer the thick man and his thick questions. Easy.


 
If you want to be Charlie Big Potato, I suggest you revive MATB.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 12, 2011)

discokermit said:


> i reckon anybody could take london.


 
What idiot would want it? Just think of the costs of running the place; you'd need to ship in roughly 84,000 tonnes of cocaine, 18,650,000 Pret a Manger halloumi and pesto sandwiches and 172,000 ill-fitting v-neck t shirts _every single second_ just to keep the fuckers from rioting. I say rioting, blogging in very stern language and getting daddy to put three more solicitors on retainer.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> If you want to be Charlie Big Potato, I suggest you revive MATB.


 TTG and MATB! You get the best living in the past rose. Well done! Here's an out of date almond magnum.

Anything to say as regards the 3-word OP with 2 questions in it? Thought not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2011)

fuck it


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it's relevant. Simply saying that it has been invaded and listing the dates is worthless though (not that they bothered doing that or expanding on who/where.how). Utterly worthless. The past problems are one of the things i hoped we could talk about on this great thread, and what problems they might pose in the future.


 OK.  I'm not complaining.

I am busy trying to help the wee one with homework, though, so I'm a bit distracted atm.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> OK.  I'm not complaining.
> 
> I am busy trying to help the wee one with homework, though, so I'm a bit distracted atm.


 

Don't matter now danny.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> TTG and MATB! You get the best living in the past rose. Well done! Here's an out of date almond magnum.
> 
> Anything to say as regards the 3-word OP with 2 questions in it? Thought not.


 
How? Or no?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 12, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Go and wash up you tramp.


Isn't that called an _ad hominem_ or somesuch high-falutin' bit of Latin ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> How? Or no?


 How can be Britain be invaded. What sort of technical and political details need be in place for this to succeed. Quite complex question asked in a simple way. None of your waffly crap. What's the problem? Why are you on this thread yossarion?


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you on this thread yossarion?


 
The thread title promised some interesting discussion, but instead I got several pages of you acting like dwyer. 

If you're going to ask "Huh? Or Nuh?" then you shouldn't bitch about people misinterpreting your question.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 12, 2011)

Obviously, as things are now, no. We've got US bases on our territory, we're (for invasion purposes) part of the USA. ie - no-one coud invade us, by proxy the USA. Not militarily possible.

I suppose the USA could officially invade us (aggressively, rather than the current method) and take shit over. That's a whole different thread there though.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, Wolfe Tone goes in, too.


 
And that Billy on his horse?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> The thread title promised some interesting discussion, but instead I got several pages of you acting like dwyer.
> 
> If you're going to ask "Huh? Or Nuh?" then you shouldn't bitch about people misinterpreting your question.


 
You can't both moan that there's no question and that there is one. As earlier, walk on by. It's crap thread. Keep walking.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> Obviously, as things are now, no. We've got US bases on our territory, we're (for invasion purposes) part of the USA. ie - no-one coud invade us, by proxy the USA. Not militarily possible.


 
Yep - invading the UK would involve having both overwhelming air power and a permission note from Washington.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> The thread title promised some interesting discussion, but instead I got several pages of you acting like dwyer.
> 
> If you're going to ask "Huh? Or Nuh?" then you shouldn't bitch about people misinterpreting your question.



I suggest that you re-read this thread btw. It's basically me trying to make people talk about what the interesting thread title might mean. And fending off people like you who've said nothing.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's basically me trying to make people talk about what the interesting thread title might mean.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 13, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> This isn't the Tolling Gang.


 
But you most certaınly are a twerp.

People lıke you are what thıs thread ıs for. And now ıt has found you.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 13, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> The thread title promised some interesting discussion


 
You wouldn't know an ınterestıng dıscussıon ıf ıt bıt you on the bum.

Thıcko.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To ask if Britannia can be invaded. How? What conditions need apply and so on.
> 
> Why is this a shit thread? Because you fucked up your replies? Does the question of if and how Britain might be invaded have no worth once you've cast your irrelevant pearls? You've talked and it's finished? It's over. You arrogant cunt.



It's a shit thread mostly because you didn't ask 'what conditions need apply and so on'. You simply berated anyone who took your inadequate OP not as you intended. That's the failing of the OP. And you are the arrogant one not to recognise that. 

Don't like it when people post back at you in the manner you post at them all the time, do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2011)

In what way did you posting that Britain is alternately under occupation and that it's impossible  to be occupied doing that?

This strange contradiction was part of some plan of yours all along was it?

I can easily accept how the threads gone - it's my tough shit, no whining. Doesn't mean that i can't try and force it onto what i wanted to talk about.


----------



## Random (Jun 13, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Not sure _why_ they would, though.  I can't actually think of any potential aggressor that would invade.  (As opposed to bomb or otherwise attack).



The most lilkely scenario is that a populist government (of the right or the left) comes to power and pulls out of the EU. Say the EU is in far far worse shape than now, with not only Greece and Portugal 'bankrupt' but also all of the ex-Communist countries as well, say.

So the UK pulls out and the Pact of Coal and Steel invades. Do we still have the navy and airforce to hold off France and Italy and Germany all combined? The key issue would really be whether the Uk officer corps stayed loyal. Otherwise the ships and planes wouldn't hold off the invasion fleet and it would be all about popular militias loyal to the government fighting quisling forces and the invaders at the same time.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 13, 2011)

Random said:


> The most lilkely scenario is that a populist government (of the right or the left) comes to power and pulls out of the EU. Say the EU is in far far worse shape than now, with not only Greece and Portugal 'bankrupt' but also all of the ex-Communist countries as well, say.
> 
> So the UK pulls out and the Pact of Coal and Steel invades. Do we still have the navy and airforce to hold off France and Italy and Germany all combined? The key issue would really be whether the Uk officer corps stayed loyal. Otherwise the ships and planes wouldn't hold off the invasion fleet and it would be all about popular militias loyal to the government fighting quisling forces and the invaders at the same time.


 
except the aging but sneaky Man of Steel Dotcommunist has been slowly replacing the crews of Trident submarines with his private guard and has them stationed through out the Med and Baltic seas.

the peoples bomb shall burst forth a new dawn!


----------



## Knotted (Jun 13, 2011)

I wouldn't have thought it would be possible generally speaking. Not with the nuclear arsenal. Perhaps if there was already massive civil strife (or even civil war) and key sections of the establishment could be won over to the invaders. Has any nuclear power ever been invaded? I can't think of a case.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jun 13, 2011)

Why would anybody want to invade Britain could be a better question?


----------



## xenon (Jun 13, 2011)

Theoretically it could, at great cost. A foreign power with a sustained arial bombardment, control of the channel and East Atlantic . If not nearby mainland Europe. This only afterassuming NATO Allies have been defeated, renaged on treatie obligations or they're the ones doing the invading. Far as I can tell, there's no world power with both the motivation and the means to do so. It's a bizarre question.


----------



## xenon (Jun 13, 2011)

Random said:


> The most lilkely scenario is that a populist government (of the right or the left) comes to power and pulls out of the EU. Say the EU is in far far worse shape than now, with not only Greece and Portugal 'bankrupt' but also all of the ex-Communist countries as well, say.
> 
> So the UK pulls out and the Pact of Coal and Steel invades. Do we still have the navy and airforce to hold off France and Italy and Germany all combined? The key issue would really be whether the Uk officer corps stayed loyal. Otherwise the ships and planes wouldn't hold off the invasion fleet and it would be all about popular militias loyal to the government fighting quisling forces and the invaders at the same time.


 

But even then, why would they invade? For the gold, minerals, Warbatons Thick Slice? Reffugies in their milions fleeing some horror on the continent could possibly invade but the English channel would be choked with wreckages and the dead before enough people got here such as to constitute an invasion.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 13, 2011)

Random said:


> The most lilkely scenario is that a populist government (of the right or the left) comes to power and pulls out of the EU. Say the EU is in far far worse shape than now, with not only Greece and Portugal 'bankrupt' but also all of the ex-Communist countries as well, say.
> 
> So the UK pulls out and the Pact of Coal and Steel invades. Do we still have the navy and airforce to hold off France and Italy and Germany all combined? The key issue would really be whether the Uk officer corps stayed loyal. Otherwise the ships and planes wouldn't hold off the invasion fleet and it would be all about popular militias loyal to the government fighting quisling forces and the invaders at the same time.



Bob Crow and Arthur Scargill ticket


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jun 13, 2011)

anyhows the USA invaded youse ages ago....


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 13, 2011)

I think Britain could be successfully attacked by the US of A. They might do it if they thought we were challenging their political thinking, but this would be a feeble excuse to cover the military strategic reasons, to give them a wholly American controlled base in Europe. At the moment militarily we are an advance air base for them but not completely under their control. They could invade and take over London and the financial interests in the City. They could then withdraw leaving sufficient forces to keep their trophies while building a few massive air bases for attacking the oil producing countries of the Middle East or anyone else they might take against. It is possible that they would first offer a negotiated take over to the British Government having first made sure of support from British based multinational companies especially those like SERCO and CAPITA who are mopping up the vast profits from the take over of our Welfare State.

Edited to add: I only just saw the post above. Yes America always leaves behind air bases wherever they go. They are all over the world especially in places they have invaded.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 13, 2011)

Who would want to invade Britain? 

It seem that there is an average wait of 7 hours to be seen in a casualty department, if you are lucky enough to have a local one. About 25% of children leave school with a reading age of 12 years old or less. It has the highest rate of children having children outside the poorest areas of the 3rd world. The most vulnerable people in Britain are the ones most under attack from the Government. The elderly are dieing from the heat in the summer and the cold in the winter, neglected and abused if left in local authority homes. Binge drinkers and underage drinkers in every open public space and park. In areas not being watched by CCTV there is some plastic copper with a clipboard looking for ways to extract some more tax in the form of a fine for having a tin can in the wrong rubbish bag or daring to park outside your house for two minutes to drop off some shopping or the kids. Getting arrested under section 44 for daring to take a photo. Can't leave the windows open in case some ruffian pops in for a laptop and mobile phone. Its easier to score any illegal drug in the street after midnight than it is to get a beer in some cities. if that isn't bad enough, you are not going to get a pension when your old because there will not be enough workers to pay for it. 

The above is taken from what I have read here over the last few months and is not a personal view


----------



## Random (Jun 14, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> They could invade and take over London and the financial interests in the City. They could then withdraw leaving sufficient forces to keep their trophies while building a few massive air bases for attacking the oil producing countries of the Middle East or anyone else they might take against.


 Not if most of the EU was against them. There's no way the USA could transport enough troops over the Atlantic to hold even just London. The only time the USA has successfully invaded Europe it did so using the UK as a staging area.

In all cases I think the excuse for an invasion of the UK would be that the invaders were upholding the 'rightful' government. Like what the USSR said in Afghanistan and the USA in Veitnam.


----------



## Random (Jun 14, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Bob Crow and Arthur Scargill ticket


 A working class government supported in a deal by the semi-independent governments of Scotland and Wales, narrowly managing to win over the Conservative/Blue Labour coalition.

The election is contested, the Queen refuses to recognise Crow as the PM, unrest against breaks out in Countryside Alliance strongholds and the EU invades to 'protect civilisans' and stop a humanitarian crisis.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I suggest that you re-read this thread btw. It's basically me trying to make people talk about what the interesting thread title might mean. And fending off people like you who've said nothing.


 
I took it to be a request.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 14, 2011)

1%er said:


> Who would want to invade Britain?
> 
> It seem that there is an average wait of 7 hours to be seen in a casualty department, if you are lucky enough to have a local one. About 25% of children leave school with a reading age of 12 years old or less. It has the highest rate of children having children outside the poorest areas of the 3rd world. The most vulnerable people in Britain are the ones most under attack from the Government. The elderly are dieing from the heat in the summer and the cold in the winter, neglected and abused if left in local authority homes. Binge drinkers and underage drinkers in every open public space and park. In areas not being watched by CCTV there is some plastic copper with a clipboard looking for ways to extract some more tax in the form of a fine for having a tin can in the wrong rubbish bag or daring to park outside your house for two minutes to drop off some shopping or the kids. Getting arrested under section 44 for daring to take a photo. Can't leave the windows open in case some ruffian pops in for a laptop and mobile phone. Its easier to score any illegal drug in the street after midnight than it is to get a beer in some cities. if that isn't bad enough, you are not going to get a pension when your old because there will not be enough workers to pay for it.
> 
> The above is taken from what I have read here over the last few months and is not a personal view


 
All of which is part of our very cunningly contrived strategy to not get invaded 

I think when Scotland becomes independant we should invade them and let the miserable fuckers see how good they had it all those years and how shit it is to _actually_ be under the thumb of an oppressive foreign power.


----------



## Random (Jun 14, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> All of which is part of our very cunningly contrived strategy to not get invaded


 Britain is probably one the the very very very least likely countries to get invaded, it is true. Over here in Sweden we share a land border with Russia. The Bear could snap us up in an afternoon.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 14, 2011)

Random said:


> Over here in Sweden we share a land border with Russia. The Bear could snap us up in an afternoon.


 
Didn't they try it with Finland once?  That didn't exactly go to plan.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 14, 2011)

WE ARE BEING INVADED ALREADY BY MISLUMS!!1!!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 14, 2011)

Shrup.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Didn't they try it with Finland once?  That didn't exactly go to plan.


 The Finns are hardcore. Probably not any more though. And Sweden will not fight.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 15, 2011)

Random said:


> Britain is probably one the the very very very least likely countries to get invaded, it is true. Over here in Sweden we share a land border with Russia. The Bear could snap us up in an afternoon.



Not thought about getting the train?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 15, 2011)

Random said:


> The Finns are hardcore. Probably not any more though. And Sweden will not fight.



Stalin's purge machine had killed a lot of his best officers, and the terror's lasting influence had stifled initiative in the ranks.


----------



## spacemonkey (Jun 15, 2011)

We've got some prime temperate real estate here. Billions aren't going to sit around and die in the scorching southern latitudes towards the end of the century.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 15, 2011)

spacemonkey said:


> Billions aren't going to sit around and die in the scorching southern latitudes towards the end of the century.


 
Two words: Canada. Well OK that's only one word but still it's massive, will be pleasantly defrosted and polar bear free in a few decades time and there's absolutely nobody there. Nobody important anyway, Neil Young's already left.


----------



## spacemonkey (Jun 15, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Two words: Canada. Well OK that's only one word but still it's massive, will be pleasantly defrosted and polar bear free in a few decades time and there's absolutely nobody there. Nobody important anyway, Neil Young's already left.


 
Yep. They'll have their own invasion to deal with. Favela's around the great lakes.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Not thought about getting the train?


 The boat to St P would be the closest route. It's the need for a visa that puts me off. Plus it's much more expensive to get there than to go to Helsinki or Riga. A Russian I know actually usually gets the boat to Helsinki and then teh bus to St P.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

spacemonkey said:


> We've got some prime temperate real estate here. Billions aren't going to sit around and die in the scorching southern latitudes towards the end of the century.


 Surely the Spanish and the Italians will be the ones holding the border of Fortress Europe?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 15, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Stalin's purge machine had killed a lot of his best officers, and the terror's lasting influence had stifled initiative in the ranks.


 
   Not to mention the finns slaughtered them unfortunatly for them they were out numbered dreadfully.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 15, 2011)

Random said:


> Surely the Spanish and the Italians will be the ones holding the border of Fortress Europe?


 
The south of Spain will be invading north themselves, whilst the idea of the Italians holding anything...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 15, 2011)

Random said:


> The Finns are hardcore.


The Finns _film_ hardcore.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 15, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Two words: Canada. Well OK that's only one word but still it's massive, will be pleasantly defrosted and polar bear free in a few decades time and there's absolutely nobody there. Nobody important anyway, Neil Young's already left.


 

_Parable of the Sower
_ octavia butler- immigrants fleeing the deserts of america are met with border guns or else accepted in as half-citizen serfs


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

revol68 said:


> The south of Spain will be invading north themselves, whilst the idea of the Italians holding anything...


 
Rascist! It's not like the Italians have to do anything but sink a bunch of boats filled with refugees. The Italian police did fine at brutality until they faced the Red Army after all.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> _Parable of the Sower
> _ octavia butler- immigrants fleeing the deserts of america are met with border guns or else accepted in as half-citizen serfs


 Except nowadays the southern USA will be more than 50% Hispanic already. Have just been reading about this in the Economist oh yes.


----------



## blueplume (Jun 15, 2011)

to be invaded or not to be invaded, is that your question?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 15, 2011)

Fuck Napoeleon anyway , fannying about in fucking egypt when most of Ireland knew La Marsellaise off by heart and would have welcomed him with open arms  . Then one little hop across the channel, catch them between 2 fronts  and its _adieu mon amis to the rostbeefs , we speet on your cucmber sandwiches and warm beer .._ _Eat zees garlic baguette and like it or its madame guillotine pour toi . Salut maintenant _

But no , he wanted a big fucking sphinx to look at .

fuckity fuck fuck


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 15, 2011)

dylanredefined said:


> Not to mention the finns slaughtered them unfortunatly for them they were out numbered dreadfully.



I was offering a partial reason why they got their arses handed back to them.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 15, 2011)

Random said:


> The boat to St P would be the closest route. It's the need for a visa that puts me off. Plus it's much more expensive to get there than to go to Helsinki or Riga. A Russian I know actually usually gets the boat to Helsinki and then teh bus to St P.



A tourist visa shouldn't be too much trouble, just a little something extra to sort out.  Travel companies can provide a no-hassle service for you, at little extra cost.  Plus most hotels/hostels will register your visa with the interior ministry for you, when you check in (has to be done within three working days of entering the country).  Take your passport off you for an hour or two.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> A tourist visa shouldn't be too much trouble, just a little something extra to sort out.  Travel companies can provide a no-hassle service for you, at little extra cost.  Plus most hotels/hostels will register your visa with the interior ministry for you, when you check in (has to be done within three working days of entering the country).  Take your passport off you for an hour or two.


 What about the Russian diseases though, eh?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

Such as?


----------



## john cooper (Dec 12, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> All of which is part of our very cunningly contrived strategy to not get invaded
> 
> I think when Scotland becomes independant we should invade them and let the miserable fuckers see how good they had it all those years and how shit it is to _actually_ be under the thumb of an oppressive foreign power.


like this piece frank ..so true as ime pushing sixty ..all power to the silver surfers


----------



## john cooper (Dec 12, 2011)

i


SpookyFrank said:


> All of which is part of our very cunningly contrived strategy to not get invaded
> 
> I think when Scotland becomes independant we should invade them and let the miserable fuckers see how good they had it all those years and how shit it is to _actually_ be under the thumb of an oppressive foreign power.


de rebuild hadrians wall and dig out offas ditch


----------



## tar1984 (Dec 12, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think when Scotland becomes independant we should invade them and let the miserable fuckers see how good they had it all those years and how shit it is to _actually_ be under the thumb of an oppressive foreign power.



I'm not sure anybody in Scotland believes they _are_ under the thumb of an oppressive foreign power.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2011)

When Scotland does become independent, perhaps people will learn to feckin spell the word.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

tar1984 said:


> I'm not sure anybody in Scotland believes they _are_ under the thumb of an oppressive foreign power.


 
Tell it to Peter Dow


----------



## pogofish (Dec 12, 2011)

tar1984 said:


> I'm not sure anybody in Scotland believes they _are_ under the thumb of an oppressive foreign power.



Start reading-up on your recent and not so recent history then!


----------



## pogofish (Dec 12, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Stalin's purge machine had killed a lot of his best officers, and the terror's lasting influence had stifled initiative in the ranks.



Nonetheless, Finland's performance in WW2 was remarkable - *Two* wars with the USSR, then they kicked the Nazis out.

And on top of this, despite losing the wars with the USSR and having to cede significant amounts of territory, the Finnish Army and its General Mannerheim gained a level of respect from Zhukov, Molotov and other Soviet leaders that was quite unlike any other opponent of the USSR and may have led to the relatively favourable armistice terms granted to Finland.

Then the Finns told the US to Stuff their Marshall Plan post war!


----------



## tar1984 (Dec 12, 2011)

pogofish said:


> Start reading-up on your recent and not so recent history then!



I study Scottish history at uni 

I was being flippant, but the independence debate tends to centre on the pros and cons of the union rather than a 'we must free ourselves from this English oppression at all costs...' type of dialogue. Among sane people anyway.  Scotland took a lot of benefits from the union we were hardly invaded and conquered at the time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Tell it to Peter Dow



I'm sure tar meant "I'm not sure anybody *sane* in Scotland...".


----------



## pogofish (Dec 12, 2011)

tar1984 said:


> I study Scottish history at uni
> 
> I was being flippant, but the independence debate tends to centre on the pros and cons of the union rather than a 'we must free ourselves from this English oppression at all costs...' type of dialogue. Among sane people anyway. Scotland took a lot of benefits from the union we were hardly invaded and conquered at the time.



Dear god!   

True - And I don't think it should concentrate on past oppression - However, you don't have to look very deep to find all sorts of polices rooted in oppression or potentially oppressive - even in quite recent times.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 12, 2011)

pogofish said:


> Nonetheless, Finland's performance in WW2 was remarkable - Two wars with the USSR, then they kicked the Nazis out.
> 
> And on top of this, despite losing the wars with the USSR and having to cede significant amounts of territory, the Finnish Army and its General Mannerheim gained a level of respect from Zhukov, Molotov and other Soviet leaders that was quite unlike any other opponent of the USSR and may have led to the relatively favourable armistice terms granted to Finland.
> 
> Then the Finns told the US to Stuff their Marshall Plan post war!



'Stuff' the plan etc was more about Finland's weakened hand and Soviet strategic interests in negotiating a neutral solution to Finland's then ambiguous post-war status. Negotiations between the USSR and Finland guaranteed that no military threat to the USSR came from them or other forces using Finnish territory, and in return the recognition of Finland's sovereignty. Reparations to the Soviet Union were also a part of this. It was Soviet pressure in this matter, not the national pride of Finnish politicians, that saw a rejection of the Marshall Plan. At the same time, in matters of sovereignty the Finnish government was also concerned about what was happening elsewhere, with the installation of anti-fascist nominally coalition governments, as the Red Army swept through eastern and central Europe in pursuit of the retreating Germans in the latter part of the war. They later became integrated Soviet satellites, in matters of crude Stalinist definitions of 'socialism,' lower-stage People's Democracies with ruling Communist parties.


----------



## 1927 (Dec 13, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Any invaders'd be repelled long before they reached Walmington-on Sea.



Bollocks. They couldnt even stop Phillip Madoc.


----------



## Random (Dec 14, 2011)

Random said:


> The most lilkely scenario is that a populist government (of the right or the left) comes to power and pulls out of the EU. Say the EU is in far far worse shape than now, with not only Greece and Portugal 'bankrupt' but also all of the ex-Communist countries as well, say.
> 
> So the UK pulls out and the Pact of Coal and Steel invades. Do we still have the navy and airforce to hold off France and Italy and Germany all combined? The key issue would really be whether the Uk officer corps stayed loyal. Otherwise the ships and planes wouldn't hold off the invasion fleet and it would be all about popular militias loyal to the government fighting quisling forces and the invaders at the same time.


My prediction is looking even more likely now!


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 14, 2011)

Random said:


> My prediction is looking even more likely now!


Which means Mrs Magpie's prediction gets another chance to shine.

Who do you think you are kidding, Mer-erkozy?


----------



## Random (Dec 14, 2011)

And this time we'll carry out the dream of Orwell and Wintringham and turn the Home Guard into a workers' millitia. Cameron will think we're signing up to defend the City of London only to find our bayonets in the door of the Stock Exchange!


----------



## john cooper (Dec 16, 2011)

i want independence from ireland wales scotland cornwall london yorkshire the midlands .. god save manchester


----------



## john cooper (Dec 23, 2011)

1927 said:


> Bollocks. They couldnt even stop Phillip Madoc.


love that pic...so funny


----------



## john cooper (Dec 27, 2011)

we have already been invaded...look around you !!!!!!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 28, 2011)

john cooper said:


> we have already been invaded...look around you !!!!!!



I'm not sure you can identify a Norman just by looking at them any more.


----------



## JimW (Dec 28, 2011)

Mr Cooper must be referring to the invasion of all spheres of human interaction by the logic of capital. I blame the medieval Genoese.


----------



## john cooper (Dec 29, 2011)

JimW said:


> Mr Cooper must be referring to the invasion of all spheres of human interaction by the logic of capital. I blame the medieval Genoese.


being a well travelled person and liking the interaction with all nationalities and being of a cosmopolitan mind ide like to ask what is an englishman ?? i know what a british , irish , welsh and scotsman is as they are well represented with their own cultures but who represents the englishman and does the englishman still exist or has he been out lawed ??


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 29, 2011)

Real name. Real pic. More chins than sense. Mentalist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2011)

those pen pushers in brussels have outlawed my culture. Who now will speak for the englishman. Sob weep


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 29, 2011)

john cooper said:


> being a well travelled person and liking the interaction with all nationalities and being of a cosmopolitan mind ide like to ask what is an englishman ?? i know what a british , irish , welsh and scotsman is as they are well represented with their own cultures but who represents the englishman and does the englishman still exist or has he been out lawed ??



Oh god. Here we go.


----------



## JimW (Dec 29, 2011)

john cooper said:


> being a well travelled person and liking the interaction with all nationalities and being of a cosmopolitan mind ide like to ask what is an englishman ?? i know what a british , irish , welsh and scotsman is as they are well represented with their own cultures but who represents the englishman and does the englishman still exist or has he been out lawed ??


Although my earlier comment was a bit tongue in cheek, I reckon it does actually relate to why there's not such a clearly identifiable 'English' culture as there stereotypically is in Scotland, Wales and Ireland. These were still somewhat at the periphery during the height of British industrial expansion and empire, so popular traditions and practices survived on the margins without so much change or breaks in continuity (not that they didn't change or get romantically re-invented and all that), while the English working class were right in the thick of it so tradition got broken and subsumed more thoroughly by the massive changes in social relations accelerating capitalist transformations entailed, including urbanisation which hollowed out the rural communities that tend to be the preservers of some sort of continuity at the core of what are seen as national traditions (however over-simplistic that latter notion might be).


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 29, 2011)

john cooper said:


> being a well travelled person and liking the interaction with all nationalities and being of a cosmopolitan mind ide like to ask what is an englishman ?? i know what a british , irish , welsh and scotsman is as they are well represented with their own cultures but who represents the englishman and does the englishman still exist or has he been out lawed ??



He never existed.  The English are a nation of mongrels.  Even the closest term they have for an originary populace--the so-called "Anglo-Saxons"--reflects their innate hybridity.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 29, 2011)

It was a minion of King Philip of Spain who coined the military dictum "he who would England win, with Ireland must begin  " .
According to Professor  G R Sloan of the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth - he's the bloke that pretty much defines the principles behind your geo political defence strategy in his books and lectures to the  generals etc  - that dictum is as true today as it was then . Something that Sir Halford MacKinder ,whose "heartland" theories on geo political strategy underpinned not just British geo politics in Europe but the entire cold war NATO strategy . Both also note the unhelpful propensity of the natives to hisstorically align themselves with geo political threats , such as Spain , Bonapartes France and the Kaiser in WW 1 .

Very interesting read on the subject here. Explains the necessity for Britian to remain firmly ensconced in Ireland for its own strategic interests .

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...e&q=G R Sloan geopolitics anglo irish&f=false


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

JimW said:


> Although my earlier comment was a bit tongue in cheek, I reckon it does actually relate to why there's not such a clearly identifiable 'English' culture as there stereotypically is in Scotland, Wales and Ireland. These were still somewhat at the periphery during the height of British industrial expansion and empire, so popular traditions and practices survived on the margins without so much change or breaks in continuity (not that they didn't change or get romantically re-invented and all that), while the English working class were right in the thick of it so tradition got broken and subsumed more thoroughly by the massive changes in social relations accelerating capitalist transformations entailed, including urbanisation which hollowed out the rural communities that tend to be the preservers of some sort of continuity at the core of what are seen as national traditions (however over-simplistic that latter notion might be).


can you speak english so i can understand what your on about ..thankyou


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> those pen pushers in brussels have outlawed my culture. Who now will speak for the englishman. Sob weep


we wont be part of brussels soon only a matter of time now


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> He never existed. The English are a nation of mongrels. Even the closest term they have for an originary populace--the so-called "Anglo-Saxons"--reflects their innate hybridity.


valid point you make a nation of mongrels yes i can roll with that


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> It was a minion of King Philip of Spain who coined the military dictum "he who would England win, with Ireland must begin " .
> According to Professor G R Sloan of the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth - he's the bloke that pretty much defines the principles behind your geo political defence strategy in his books and lectures to the generals etc - that dictum is as true today as it was then . Something that Sir Halford MacKinder ,whose "heartland" theories on geo political strategy underpinned not just British geo politics in Europe but the entire cold war NATO strategy . Both also note the unhelpful propensity of the natives to hisstorically align themselves with geo political threats , such as Spain , Bonapartes France and the Kaiser in WW 1 .
> 
> Very interesting read on the subject here. Explains the necessity for Britian to remain firmly ensconced in Ireland for its own strategic interests .
> ...


my point is the word english is being removed ie signing on at the dole office they ask if you are every nationality down to british if you say english like i did they say you cant put that why ?


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

ChrisFilter said:


> Oh god. Here we go.


very short answer to my question you are not scottish by any chance are you ...just a thought


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2011)

No, I'm English.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2011)

john cooper said:


> my point is the word english is being removed ie signing on at the dole office they ask if you are every nationality down to british if you say english like i did they say you cant put that why ?


You can only put down British or citizen of the UK. You cannot put Scottish or Welsh. Stop whining.


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You can only put down British or citizen of the UK. You cannot put Scottish or Welsh. Stop whining.


i still think the english culture is dying....or should i say being murdered


----------



## Gmart (Jan 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You can only put down British or citizen of the UK. You cannot put Scottish or Welsh. Stop whining.


Strange to force people to choose like this.
It seems unlikely that it will be invaded, but I could see Scotland and Ireland claiming independence especially as part of a greater EU - leaving the UK as Wales and England only - and even Wales might do it in time - and that would be the end of the words 'Britain', 'UK' & 'British'. It would be the end of Empire.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2012)

Nothing to with anything on the thread at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i still think the english culture is dying....or should i say being murdered



What is "English culture"?
And as you're a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (that's England, Wales and Scotland) and Northern Ireland, then of course you put British, and there's never, as far as I can recall in more than 30 years of filling out forms for governmental bureaucracies, been an option to tick "English" on forms, it's always been "British".


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jan 1, 2012)

19sixtysix said:


> They did land troops but decided not to bother staying.


who the hell were William'n'Mary then? Glorious Revolution?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i still think the english culture is dying....or should i say being murdered


Exactly what I thought whilst me and several hundred tourists milled around your Windsor Castle the other day


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 1, 2012)

two sheds said:


> They couldn't be bothered to actually land, though.



The Dutch not only landed, but also installed their Stadhouder as King. (With the help of most of the English, it has to be said.)


----------



## Gmart (Jan 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing to with anything on the thread at all.


Never stopped you 
And yet I reckon that Britain might well break up in the way I describe. If you are concerned about being invaded (something I would say is highly unlikely), then I am asking if you are concerned about a more likely form of breakup. Scotland and Ireland could claim independence especially as part of a greater EU - leaving the UK as Wales and England only. 'Britain', 'UK' & 'British' would be obsolete over night. It would be the end of Britain either way.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What is "English culture"?
> And as you're a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (that's England, Wales and Scotland) and Northern Ireland, then of course you put British, and there's never, as far as I can recall in more than 30 years of filling out forms for governmental bureaucracies, been an option to tick "English" on forms, it's always been "British".


ask an irishman welshman scottishman oooooh i and cornishman if they are british ...i know what they would say !!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i still think the english culture is dying....or should i say being murdered


What is culture?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Never stopped you
> And yet I reckon that Britain might well break up in the way I describe. If you are concerned about being invaded (something I would say is highly unlikely), then I am asking if you are concerned about a more likely form of breakup. Scotland and Ireland could claim independence especially as part of a greater EU - leaving the UK as Wales and England only. 'Britain', 'UK' & 'British' would be obsolete over night. It would be the end of Britain either way.



I an very very concerned about Britain being invaded - hence this thread. It's playing havoc with my nerves. I'm not concerned about other unrelated scenarios thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ask an irishman welshman scottishman oooooh i and cornishman if they are british ...i know what they would say !!



I don't give a purple-arsed baboon's left nut what they would say. I know what the fuck is on the passport of any Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish or Kernoic, and it's the same as what's in the passport of any English: "British".

If you're going to argue, John, at least make sure you've got a fucking argument, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I an very very concerned about Britain being invaded - hence this thread. It's playing havoc with my nerves. I'm not concerned about other unrelated scenarios thanks.



There there, Butch.  Don't be afeared. GMart will look after us. He'll bore the invaders to death demanding a constitution from them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

That sort of inhuman weapon needs banning frankly.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't give a purple-arsed baboon's left nut what they would say. I know what the fuck is on the passport of any Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish or Kernoic, and it's the same as what's in the passport of any English: "British".
> 
> If you're going to argue, John, at least make sure you've got a fucking argument, eh?


do you live in england and are you of english origins as your language hints at alien dna


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> alien dna


Are you serious? That is the very poorest kind of race science.

Let's see your swab, then.

Oh, and I was serious: define "culture".


----------



## john cooper (Jan 4, 2012)

when a person shows a distinct lack of respect why should i show them any


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2012)

I was hoping for more than gnomic evasion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> do you live in england and are you of english origins as your language hints at alien dna



I've got "alien" DNA, along with a majority of the rest of the supposedly-"English" population. Same with the Scots, Welsh and Irish.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> when a person shows a distinct lack of respect why should i show them any



Why should I respect someone coming out with a load of inane bollocks? You have to earn respect, mate. You don't get given it for free.


----------



## Random (Jan 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've got "alien" DNA, along with a majority of the rest of the supposedly-"English" population. Same with the Scots, Welsh and Irish.


Hold on - no need to accept the concept of 'alien dna' at all. Alien DNA is something that is found on rocks from mars. Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

Random said:


> Hold on - no need to accept the concept of 'alien dna' at all. Alien DNA is something that is found on rocks from mars. Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto



Well, my kind were officially labelled as "aliens" in the Aliens Act 1905, so I have official sanction for using it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, my kind were officially labelled as "aliens" in the Aliens Act 1905, so I have official sanction for using it.



Possibly the idiot thinks you've got lizard blood.


----------



## Random (Jan 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, my kind were officially labelled as "aliens" in the Aliens Act 1905, so I have official sanction for using it.


And blimey, looking at the Wiki entry for that Act (too see if I also qualify) it says that trade unions supported this kind of restriction on immigration, especially Jewish immigration. Anyone know any more on that? Seems to me that working class interests would have been better met by attacking the landlords and employers who used unskilled immigrants to push down conditions and wages. Were the unions looking for a cross-class alliance with certain conservative notables?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2012)

Random said:


> And blimey, looking at the Wiki entry for that Act (too see if I also qualify) it says that trade unions supported this kind of restriction on immigration, especially Jewish immigration. Anyone know any more on that? Seems to me that working class interests would have been better met by attacking the landlords and employers who used unskilled immigrants to push down conditions and wages. Were the unions looking for a cross-class alliance with certain conservative notables?


Social imperialism and all that - you should know this stuff already randy!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2012)

guild style insularity perhaps


----------



## Random (Jan 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Social imperialism and all that - you should know this stuff already randy!


I sort of do, but still get shocked and find it hard to believe; plus don't want to just take a Wiki assertion at face value.

Worth keeping in mind when we talk about what sort of an organisation the Labour Party is, and why the unions won't break to form a pro-working class alternative...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

Random said:


> And blimey, looking at the Wiki entry for that Act (too see if I also qualify) it says that trade unions supported this kind of restriction on immigration, especially Jewish immigration. Anyone know any more on that? Seems to me that working class interests would have been better met by attacking the landlords and employers who used unskilled immigrants to push down conditions and wages. Were the unions looking for a cross-class alliance with certain conservative notables?



There's a bit in Anne Kershen's "Uniting the Tailors" about my great-grandad's union being against the Aliens Act. Then again, most of the jobbing tailors in the big British cities were Jews, so a bit of a vested interest. 
The other thing is that the unions we'ren't particularly worried about unskilled labour, but about the *skilled* labour. Bear in mind that many of the people who left the Russian empire weren't mostly rural types, they were often urban tradespeople, even artisans and professionals in some cases.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> guild style insularity perhaps



Very much so. Trying to see off a threat to their "closed shop", and perfectly understandable (if not particularly excusable) in that context.


----------



## Random (Jan 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The other thing is that the unions we'ren't particularly worried about unskilled labour, but about the *skilled* labour.


 Skilled workers outside the control of the union-guild, like DC says?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 4, 2012)

not fair - i read all the way through and was looking forward to discussing the projection of power and the strategic consequences of geography, and then some git comes along and pisses all over the thread with 'dem joooz iz murdren english culchar'.

hurrumph.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

Random said:


> Skilled workers outside the control of the union-guild, like DC says?



Yep. One of the things indicative of the breadth of trades and skills east European Jewry brought with them is even a cursory examination of the EE Jewish communities that sprang up in London and Manchester, in the late-Victorian era. We had our own doctors, nurses, newspapers, monumental masons, lawyers, etc etc. There was also a perceived threat to the mining and steelmaking unions, in that a minority of the Polish and Ukrainian males emigrating to the UK were miners and founders. It was pretty much a mistaken perception (most of them wouldn't scab, and became members in good standing of their trades' union), but the perception was there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

kebabking said:


> not fair - i read all the way through and was looking forward to discussing the projection of power and the strategic consequences of geography, and then some git comes along and pisses all over the thread with 'dem joooz iz murdren english culchar'.
> 
> hurrumph.



Us Yids, we're *totally* fucking insidious.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Us Yids, we're *totally* fucking insidious.



That's racist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

TruXta said:


> That's racist.



Right, sunshine, that's your bank account going up the Swanee!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Right, sunshine, that's your bank account going up the Swanee!



It wasn't you who called me earlier today pretending to be from a solicitor's office inquiring about a car accident I was supposed to have been in two years ago was it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2012)

No, I find ambulance-chasing too tiring.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 4, 2012)

I regret not taking his undoubtedly fake details now. Scamming bastard.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why should I respect someone coming out with a load of inane bollocks? You have to earn respect, mate. You don't get given it for free.


yes i agree you do have to earn respect


----------



## john cooper (Jan 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Hold on - no need to accept the concept of 'alien dna' at all. Alien DNA is something that is found on rocks from mars. Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto


correct ime glad you noticed that as a lot didnt .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2012)

Nice wriggle.

And I mean _nice_ in the technical sense.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 5, 2012)

has england been invaded ? well if its a mongrel country like ive been advised on here , then theres nothing to lose if it was invaded , if theres no english culture or identity or selfworth as an englishman , open the ports and let everyone in , mind you looking around i think we already have .


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 5, 2012)

john cooper said:


> has england been invaded ? well if its a mongrel country like ive been advised on here , then theres nothing to lose if it was invaded , if theres no english culture or identity or selfworth as an englishman , open the ports and let everyone in , *mind you looking around i think we already have* .



I don't think your culture has unduly suffered with centuries of immigration, tbh. Do you feel it has?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2012)

john cooper said:


> has england been invaded ? well if its a mongrel country like ive been advised on here , then theres nothing to lose if it was invaded , if theres no english culture or identity or selfworth as an englishman , open the ports and let everyone in , mind you looking around i think we already have .



Bit of a nonsense argument you're making, John. Up until slightly more than a hundred years ago we didn't have any restriction on immigration, so we've absorbed influences and communities from all points of the compass. You don't need invasion in order for a country's "indigenous culture" (whatever that is) to be hybridised (or, as some arseholes would have it, "diluted"). Show me an example of something you believe is definitive of English culture" (or indeed Welsh or Scots or Irish or French culture, to name but a few nations who supposedly have a "native culture") and I'll show you the same cultural trait at work elsewhere.

As for tying your sense of worth merely to your identity as originating from a particular location, don't you think that what you actually achieve has more meaning than where you were born?

Then again, for some people I'm not "proper English", what with being descended from a "foreigner" four generations back on one side of my family, so I tend to think of people who define themselves solely by an accident of birth as ignorant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't think your culture has unduly suffered with centuries of immigration, tbh. Do you feel it has?



To be fair, he didn't *say* it had suffered.
I'd say that English culture has benefited from immigration (yes, even recent immigration, for you weepy-eyed conservatives out there) far more than it has suffered.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, he didn't *say* it had suffered.
> I'd say that English culture has benefited from immigration (yes, even recent immigration, for you weepy-eyed conservatives out there) far more than it has suffered.


I think we all benefit from each others cultures; I've never personally felt that it somehow lessens a culture to take on board new ideas, peoples and so on... pnk wristed bleeding heart liberal that I am


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> has england been invaded ? well if its a mongrel country like ive been advised on here , then theres nothing to lose if it was invaded , if theres no english culture or identity or selfworth as an englishman , open the ports and let everyone in , mind you looking around i think we already have .


You still haven't defined "culture".  You clearly think it of high importance, since the loss of it is all you fear from invasion.  So, what is it?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You still haven't defined "culture". You clearly think it of high importance, since the loss of it is all you fear from invasion. So, what is it?


i guess culture is a way of life , its what you grow up with and the older you get i think the more important it becomes and when you see your way of life being altered nay manufactured to fit a certain stereotype you rebel .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 6, 2012)

regarding different ethnic origins i have many asian friends and african friends and chinese friends i even have welsh , scottish and irish friends just thought ide mention that .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 6, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't think your culture has unduly suffered with centuries of immigration, tbh. Do you feel it has?


ive nothing against immigration its the volume i think is out of control ..ide like to immigrate to spain or india .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i guess culture is a way of life , its what you grow up with and the older you get i think the more important it becomes and when you see your way of life being altered nay manufactured to fit a certain stereotype you rebel .


OK.  "A way of life".  So, do you see it as something unchanging, and needing to be preserved?  Or do you see it as something that changes only as a result of the choices of its members?  If the latter, then you have already outlined one problem: the differing views of different generations.  Culturally, do you have more in common with a Welsh person of your generation (50-something?) or an English 16-year-old?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i guess culture is a way of life , its what you grow up with and the older you get i think the more important it becomes and when you see your way of life being altered nay manufactured to fit a certain stereotype you rebel .



You're all over the place. You talked about "English culture", but you won't find many regions in England where the locals share ideas about their way of life with other regions.
Peoples' "way of life" changes with the years. My grandad's way of life isn't mine. My way of life won't be that of my descendents. Culture is fluid - it changes to fit what people need from it, and nobody attempting to manufacture culture has ever succeeded. That's because culture isn't just about "ways of life", it's about art, language, religion, everything we produce.

If you think "English culture" begins and ends with *your* way of life, if you believe someone is deliberately altering national culture, then you're softer than Dover chalk.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I think we all benefit from each others cultures; I've never personally felt that it somehow lessens a culture to take on board new ideas, peoples and so on... pnk wristed bleeding heart liberal that I am



Nothing "bleeding heart" about acknowledging that all cultures have utility, or that cultures are fluid, that they work best when they have new materials to relate to and identify with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> regarding different ethnic origins i have many asian friends and african friends and chinese friends i even have welsh , scottish and irish friends just thought ide mention that .



That's nice for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ive nothing against immigration its the volume i think is out of control ..ide like to immigrate to spain or india .



All this vague wibbling about culture and immigration, but you've got nothing solid. You don't post any numbers to back up this "out of control" volume of immigration.

Why's that, John? Dodgy sources, or do you just not have anything to back up your views?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ive nothing against immigration its the volume i think is out of control ..ide like to immigrate to spain or india .



What would you hope to find there, jc?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK. "A way of life". So, do you see it as something unchanging, and needing to be preserved? Or do you see it as something that changes only as a result of the choices of its members? If the latter, then you have already outlined one problem: the differing views of different generations. Culturally, do you have more in common with a Welsh person of your generation (50-something?) or an English 16-year-old?


i like this reply ...and cannot disagree


----------



## john cooper (Jan 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> All this vague wibbling about culture and immigration, but you've got nothing solid. You don't post any numbers to back up this "out of control" volume of immigration.
> 
> Why's that, John? Dodgy sources, or do you just not have anything to back up your views?


i will endevour to produce some facts ...noted


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i like this reply ...and cannot disagree


It's a series of questions.  Are you agreeing with the questions?  Which ones?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 6, 2012)

a way of life is familiarity having something in common with the people and surroundings you live in


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> a way of life is familiarity having something in common with the people and surroundings you live in


OK, thanks.  Now.  The questions...any thoughts?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ask an irishman welshman scottishman oooooh i and cornishman if they are british ...i know what they would say !!



And the Manx, treacherous bastards.

Doesn't England include London, the south, the midlands, Yorkshire...


----------



## john cooper (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> And the Manx, treacherous bastards.
> 
> Doesn't England include London, the south, the midlands, Yorkshire...


yes of coarse it does


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 7, 2012)

Thought you didn't like them?

Next time somebody asks your nationality, you just say Manchester


----------



## john cooper (Jan 7, 2012)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thought you didn't like them?
> 
> Next time somebody asks your nationality, you just say Manchester


well i could say that..ime geting bored now with being english..any suggestions


----------



## john cooper (Jan 7, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, thanks. Now. The questions...any thoughts?


nothing really comes to mind


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 7, 2012)

Nothing comes to mind?  Let me get the straight: you said you agreed with my post, although the post was a series of questions rather than something to agree with, and then when I ask you if you have any answers to the questions, you say nothing comes to mind.

Are you sure English is your first language?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2012)

What would it take to land feet on this sacred land?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 8, 2012)

you asked for answeres to your series of questions i havnt got any at the moment...mulling it over these things must not be rushed ...telly savalas is a hero of mine


----------



## john cooper (Jan 8, 2012)

as for england being invaded...the celts ie welsh irish scottish ...are the only true people of this island all the rest are mongrels


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> telly savalas is a hero of mine


Who loves ya, baby.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 8, 2012)

you have a sense of humour ime glad about that


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2012)

Can you just fuck off like?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Can you just fuck off like?


are you one of those foul mouthed youths ive been reading about ?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 8, 2012)




----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

I'd like to explore with John the question of culture, partly because it interests me, but also because it looks like John hasn't thought through his stance.  I'd like to look at the similarities between the two major stances on culture.  But if Butchers prefers, we can do this on another thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2012)

Go  for it danny.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

OK. The questions I asked John earlier, I think, tease out what is meant by 'culture' (in the sense of a national culture). Is culture something unchanging that needs to be preserved?
Or is it something that does change, but only as a result of the choices of its members?

These are actually both stances that a multiculturalist and the exclusivist right can express.  Here are two quotes.  One is from Enoch Powell, one is from Will Kymlicka, a liberal multiculturalist.  Which is which?

"It is one thing to learn from the larger world; it is another thing to be swamped by it".

"Every society [...] is unique.  It has its own past, its own story, its own memories, its own language or way of speaking"

Which is which?   Which promotes diversity, which promotes exclusion?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

There can be no question that native American culture was swamped by the European one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> There can be no question that native American culture was swamped by the European one.


OK.  Does it therefore follow that cultures should not be allowed to be swamped by outsiders?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK. Does it therefore follow that cultures should not be allowed to be swamped by outsiders?



How could it have been 'disallowed'?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> How could it have been 'disallowed'?


Ask the right person you drongo. The impossibility is sort of the point...you....know...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> How could it have been 'disallowed'?


That is an historical fact, I'm asking you if you think it can be extrapolated from that historical fact that we should recognise as a matter of political principle that cultures should not be swamped by outsiders? Leave aside the workability for the moment: would such a principle be desirable?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The impossibility is sort of the point...you....know...


We'll get to that; it may just take longer with this one.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> That is an historical fact, I'm asking you if you think it can be electroplated from that historical fact that we should recognise as a matter of political principle that cultures should not be swamped by outsiders? Leave aside the workability for the moment: would such a principle be desirable?



No.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> No.


OK.  So, you brought up Native American culture.  What went wrong there?  In other words, what was worse, the loss of culture, or the loss of life, land and self-determination?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK. So, you brought up Native American culture. What went wrong there? In other words, what was worse, the loss of culture, or the loss of life, land and self-determination?



Do you really believe that such things can be measured?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Do you really believe that such things can be measured?


Yes. Genocide versus "loss of culture". I vote that genocide is worse than the fact that nobody speaks Shinnecock any more. Would you agree?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

I don't really believe that cultures get lost. They change.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I don't really believe that cultures get lost. They change.


so where would you say that the assyrian culture is now? or the hittite. not to mention the pictish culture or the aztec.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> There can be no question that native American culture was swamped by the European one.


oh dear. there goes the thread.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so where would you say that the assyrian culture is now? or the hittite. not to mention the pictish culture or the aztec.



Strands, however tiny, will still be permeating through the successor cultures.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Strands, however tiny, will still be permeating through the successor cultures.


so, to take the hittites, you're saying that somewhere in anatolia despite the persians, romans, greeks, turks, byzantines, crusaders and so on, there remains a strand of the hittite culture. where would you say i could find this marvel?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I don't really believe that cultures get lost. They change.


Indeed.  Cultures change.  But when you brought up Native American culture, where were you going with that?  Do you think the culture was swamped?  Or do you think that the people were dispossessed and exterminated?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> where are they?



Perhaps you could try a magnifying glass, Pick. Who knows you may then see something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so, to take the hittites, you're saying that somewhere in anatolia despite the persians, romans, greeks, turks, byzantines, crusaders and so on, there remains a strand of the hittite culture. where would you say i could find this marvel?





Lock&Light said:


> Perhaps you could try a magnifying glass, Pick. Who knows you may then see something.


where could i find this marvel?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed. Cultures change. But when you brought up Native American culture, where were you going with that? Do you think the culture was swamped? Or do you think that the people were dispossessed and exterminated?



This thread is about invasion, Danny. Perhaps you're overlooking that.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> where could i find this marvel?



Magnifying glasses are sold on most high streets, Pick.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> This thread is about invasion, Danny. Perhaps you're overlooking that.


Not at all.  Culture was brought into the equation by another poster, and I sought to explore that.  But we can talk about both.  Do you think the culture was swamped? Or do you think that the people were dispossessed and exterminated?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Not at all. Culture was brought into the equation by another poster, and I sought to explore that. But we can talk about both. Do you think the culture was swamped? Or do you think that the people were dispossessed and exterminated?



Of course they were dispossesed and exterminated. But right from the start their culture was also swamped.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Magnifying glasses are sold on most high streets, Pick.


not the magnifying glass; where do you think i could find this marvellous vestige of hittite civilization?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Of course they were dispossesed and exterminated. But right from the start their culture was also swamped.


I suggest that if a tribe is exterminated, the salient point is not really that their language has died out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Of course they were dispossesed and exterminated. But right from the start their culture was also swamped.


How?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 8, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> not the magnifying glass; where do you think i could find this marvellous vestige of hittite civilization?



For a clever person you are surprisingly thick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Of course they were dispossesed and exterminated. But right from the start their culture was also swamped.


so when was this 'start'? do you think native american culture was all swamped the moment columbus set foot on hispaniola? you thick fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> For a clever person you are surprisingly thick.


no, where could i find it, not what was the last thing someone said to you irl.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK. The questions I asked John earlier, I think, tease out what is meant by 'culture' (in the sense of a national culture). Is culture something unchanging that needs to be preserved?
> Or is it something that does change, but only as a result of the choices of its members?
> 
> These are actually both stances that a multiculturalist and the exclusivist right can express. Here are two quotes. One is from Enoch Powell, one is from Will Kymlicka, a liberal multiculturalist. Which is which?
> ...



what if other cultures dont interest you at all only your own ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> There can be no question that native American culture was swamped by the European one.


fair point i agree it was ...dosnt make it right


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> That is an historical fact, I'm asking you if you think it can be extrapolated from that historical fact that we should recognise as a matter of political principle that cultures should not be swamped by outsiders? Leave aside the workability for the moment: would such a principle be desirable?


undesirable !


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

i


Lock&Light said:


> I don't really believe that cultures get lost. They change.


if you are reared in a certain culture and you are happy living your life as such why should outside alien cultures be allowed to alter yours ...unless its social engineering


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> what if other cultures dont interest you at all only your own ?


Well, given that your definition of a culture is "a way of life", that would be an outlook that puzzles me.  You're not interested in any _way of life_ other than your own?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

ime very interested personnaly ..i asked a question


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> undesirable !


Just to be clear: you think a political principle which holds that _cultures should not be swamped by outsiders_ is an undesirable principle?  Or you think that it _undesirable that cultures be swamped by outsiders_?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime very interested personnaly ..i asked a question


Ah, I see.  I'm not sure what difference that makes to either quote.  Want to expand?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

i keep having to explain myself i find that quite strange ? is it you do not agree with anything i say or is it you dont understand what ime talking about ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> is it you do not agree with anything i say or is it you dont understand what ime talking about ?


The latter.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> The latter.


that ends this conversation


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> that ends this conversation


What?  That isn't how conversations work!

OK.  Let's start again.  You quoted a post of mine, in which I've said a number of things, including two quotes.  Under that post, you say simply: "what if other cultures dont interest you at all only your own ?"

Now, _you_ may know what part of my post prompted that question, but I don't.  If you can explain what that question relates to, I might be able to answer it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I don't really believe that cultures get lost. They change.



There is, however, a difference between forcible assimilation and the usual hybrisation that occurs in all non-closed cultures over time. Many of the various "native American" and "First nations" tribes in North America had their cultures hollowed out, and passing on of culture and language banned, so while their cultures "changed", it wasn't through a quasi-natural process of cultural "evolution", it was through amputation.
It's a sound tactic for successor cultures, though, and has been for thousands of years. It minimises resistance based around shared culture within a couple of generations when done wholesale.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> what if other cultures dont interest you at all only your own ?



If you're so interested in your own, why are you having such trouble telling the people who've asked what your culture is, what you're talking about?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i
> 
> if you are reared in a certain culture and you are happy living your life as such why should outside alien cultures be allowed to alter yours ...unless its social engineering



It's not a case of allowing, though. It's a case of happening. Cultural hybridisation, especially that linked to former colonies, is a two-wat street pretty much by definition of colonialism. If you impose your culture on someone else, there's *always* an amount of blowback. In the case of the UK, it's been going on as long as the state has existed. In the case of the four countries comprising the original union, the flows of cultural exchange have been happening as long as there has been contact between England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Unless you live in a closed society (i.e. no contact with "outside"), hermetically sealed off from external influences, your culture will be altered, and even in closed societies, cultures evolve internally, without external influence.
Cultures stay healthy through change. Cultures that try to legislate a form of cultural stasis invariably *provoke* cultural change (as well as political irritation).


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not a case of allowing, though. It's a case of happening. Cultural hybridisation, especially that linked to former colonies, is a two-wat street pretty much by definition of colonialism. If you impose your culture on someone else, there's *always* an amount of blowback. In the case of the UK, it's been going on as long as the state has existed. In the case of the four countries comprising the original union, the flows of cultural exchange have been happening as long as there has been contact between England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Unless you live in a closed society (i.e. no contact with "outside"), hermetically sealed off from external influences, your culture will be altered, and even in closed societies, cultures evolve internally, without external influence.
> Cultures stay healthy through change. Cultures that try to legislate a form of cultural stasis invariably *provoke* cultural change (as well as political irritation).


this piece is brilliant ...it might just change the way i look at this subject


----------



## john cooper (Jan 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What? That isn't how conversations work!
> 
> OK. Let's start again. You quoted a post of mine, in which I've said a number of things, including two quotes. Under that post, you say simply: "what if other cultures dont interest you at all only your own ?"
> 
> Now, _you_ may know what part of my post prompted that question, but I don't. If you can explain what that question relates to, I might be able to answer it.


you said the latter ...in our last conversation ..that you dont believe anything i say ..thats pretty definate so whats the point


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you said the latter ...in our last conversation ..that you dont believe anything i say ..thats pretty definate so whats the point


No I didn't.  That wasn't even one of the options.  Option 1 (the former) was that I disagreed with you.  Option 2 (the latter) was that I didn't understand what you were talking about.

I said the latter - I didn't understand what you were talking about.  Turns out you didn't, either.

(See posts here).


----------



## john cooper (Jan 10, 2012)

o


danny la rouge said:


> No I didn't. That wasn't even one of the options. Option 1 (the former) was that I disagreed with you. Option 2 (the latter) was that I didn't understand what you were talking about.
> 
> I said the latter - I didn't understand what you were talking about. Turns out you didn't, either.
> 
> (See posts here).


ok point taken...scotland are going for independence from the united kingdom..you seem to be a multi culturist , i would like your view on this , are they not proud scots just like ime a proud englishman ..as you are australian i see why you are anti monarchy .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 11, 2012)

john cooper said:


> o
> 
> ok point taken...scotland are going for independence from the united kingdom..you seem to be a multi culturist , i would like your view on this , are they not proud scots just like ime a proud englishman ..as you are australian i see why you are anti monarchy .


  That's my favourite post of the year so far.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 11, 2012)

To be fair, I should point out to you that I am neither a Multiculturalist nor an Australian.  I think you're confusing me with someone else.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 11, 2012)

I'll answer about Scottish independence, though.  First "Scotland" is not "going for independence", the Scottish Government is.  The Scottish Government is currently the SNP, a pro-independence party.  While the SNP won the Holyrood elections in May last year, we cannot assume that all those who voted SNP support independence.   Independence has only ever polled a high water mark of 40% at most. The last poll was below that. The majority of Scots, it would seem, therefore are not "going for" independence.

Are all supporters of independence "proud Scots"?  I'm not sure what that means, but why would you assume "proud Scots" were contiguous with pro independence Scots?  I'm sure there are "proud Scots" who are Unionists.  I know there are.  There are also some who support the breakup of the UK, but who do not see that as a goal of patriotism or nationalism.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I'll answer about Scottish independence, though. First "Scotland" is not "going for independence", the Scottish Government is. The Scottish Government is currently the SNP, a pro-independence party. While the SNP won the Holyrood elections in May last year, we cannot assume that all those who voted SNP support independence. Independence has only ever polled a high water mark of 40% at most. The last poll was below that. The majority of Scots, it would seem, therefore are not "going for" independence.
> 
> Are all supporters of independence "proud Scots"? I'm not sure what that means, but why would you assume "proud Scots" were contiguous with pro independence Scots? I'm sure there are "proud Scots" who are Unionists. I know there are. There are also some who support the breakup of the UK, but who do not see that as a goal of patriotism or nationalism.


are you an mp ? as you seem to cover every angle without actually answering the question


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 11, 2012)

john cooper said:


> are you an mp ? as you seem to cover every angle without actually answering the question


No, I'm not. I thought I _had_ answered the question.

I'll go through it step by step, then:

_scotland are going for independence from the united kingdom.._​
No, a majority of Scots don't support independence. The SNP does, though. (See post 307 for details).​
_you seem to be a multi culturist_​
I'm not.​
_i would like your view on this_​
On Scottish independence? I'm in favour, since I support the break up of the UK. (It isn't, though, a solution to the ills of capitalism).​
_are they not proud scots just like ime a proud englishman_​
Who, the supporters of independence? I don't think you can assume that all are. Nor can you assume that no Unionist would see him/herself as a "proud Scot".​
_..as you are australian_​
I'm not.​
_i see why you are anti monarchy ._​
You have assumed that, but since I have not discussed my support of or opposition to the monarchy since your join date (it isn't chief among my concerns), I'm not sure why. For the record, though, I do not support monarchies.​
There. Now, all that was relevant was already in post 307. What do you think I've missed?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 11, 2012)

Incidentally, you're a fine one to talk about not answering questions!  Look back through the thread at the questions I've asked you.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Incidentally, you're a fine one to talk about not answering questions! Look back through the thread at the questions I've asked you.


yes i think that just about covers all if not most of your views on the subject..one thing ime curious about , why do you want the united kingdom to break up ? does history not tell you its only caused friction and war in the extreme when it has been split , plus it weakens the sum of its parts in every respect , so can you explain why ?


----------



## Random (Jan 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Of course they were dispossesed and exterminated. But right from the start their culture was also swamped.


No, extermination preceded cultural contacts, as viruses from the first Europeans moved ahead and killed large numbers of natives who'd never even met a white man. At least according to a passage quoted in Jared Diamond's _Guns Germs and Steel_.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i still think the english culture is dying....or should i say being murdered



if you care that much about it then take up Morris dancing , or alternatively become a pearly king , clicking your heels while wolfing down copious amounts of jellied eels .
Or perhaps its an english cultural trait to just sit and moan about something.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> if you care that much about it then take up Morris dancing , or alternatively become a pearly king , clicking your heels while wolfing down copious amounts of jellied eels .



Have you seen the price of eel recently? Eels (jellied or not) have been well-expensive for the last 20 years (which probably explains why a pot of jellied eels has gone from eels with a bit of jelly to a bit of eel in a load of jelly).



> Or perhaps its an english cultural trait to just sit and moan about something.



No more than any other culture.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 12, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> if you care that much about it then take up Morris dancing , or alternatively become a pearly king , clicking your heels while wolfing down copious amounts of jellied eels .
> Or perhaps its an english cultural trait to just sit and moan about something.


now were did i pit those clogs..morris dancing love it


----------



## john cooper (Jan 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you seen the price of eel recently? Eels (jellied or not) have been well-expensive for the last 20 years (which probably explains why a pot of jellied eels has gone from eels with a bit of jelly to a bit of eel in a load of jelly).
> 
> No more than any other culture.


loved the twist on jellied eels...long may you reign


----------



## 8115 (Jan 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How?



Sea, air, tunnel or teleporter.  I don't think I've missed anything.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 12, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes i think that just about covers all if not most of your views on the subject..one thing ime curious about , why do you want the united kingdom to break up ? does history not tell you its only caused friction and war in the extreme when it has been split , plus it weakens the sum of its parts in every respect , so can you explain why ?


What was the friction and war about before the Union?  Don't you think, also, that the UK has been behind a lot of wars since the Union?

I want the UK to break up because I'd like eventually to see an end to all states.  Power should be in the hands of the people, and in the mean time the nearer that the levers of power are to the people, the better.   The more local, the better.  I also think it may be an historic moment that sees the state in a vulnerable position - a catalyst that provides an opportunity for more advances for the working class throughout the UK.  Of course, it may just mean more local government in the interests of the neoliberal elite, but we'll see.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 12, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes i think that just about covers all if not most of your views on the subject..one thing ime curious about , why do you want the united kingdom to break up ? does history not tell you its only caused friction and war in the extreme when it has been split , plus it weakens the sum of its parts in every respect , so can you explain why ?



Why do you want to see the UK remain united?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 13, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What was the friction and war about before the Union? Don't you think, also, that the UK has been behind a lot of wars since the Union?
> 
> I want the UK to break up because I'd like eventually to see an end to all states. Power should be in the hands of the people, and in the mean time the nearer that the levers of power are to the people, the better. The more local, the better. I also think it may be an historic moment that sees the state in a vulnerable position - a catalyst that provides an opportunity for more advances for the working class throughout the UK. Of course, it may just mean more local government in the interests of the neoliberal elite, but we'll see.


interesting theory but all tribes and i think calling any group a tribe is ok must have a leader does it not and that denotes being elected to that position by the group , if you could have a country of loners and the barter system back , your theory might stack up but i cant see it , regarding wars every struggle for power and resources causes friction with winners and losers its sad but a fact , like i said before its my prefference to have a united kingdom as i think it keeps more evils away than it creates


----------



## john cooper (Jan 13, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Why do you want to see the UK remain united?


i much prefer a united kingdom to preserve peace and stability


----------



## john cooper (Jan 13, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What was the friction and war about before the Union? Don't you think, also, that the UK has been behind a lot of wars since the Union?
> 
> I want the UK to break up because I'd like eventually to see an end to all states. Power should be in the hands of the people, and in the mean time the nearer that the levers of power are to the people, the better. The more local, the better. I also think it may be an historic moment that sees the state in a vulnerable position - a catalyst that provides an opportunity for more advances for the working class throughout the UK. Of course, it may just mean more local government in the interests of the neoliberal elite, but we'll see.


another thing you say you would like the break up of all states , and replace it with what leadership ? and you say power to the people does the electoral system not provide that ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> interesting theory but all tribes and i think calling any group a tribe is ok must have a leader does it not and that denotes being elected to that position by the group , if you could have a country of loners and the barter system back , your theory might stack up but i cant see it , regarding wars every struggle for power and resources causes friction with winners and losers its sad but a fact , like i said before its my prefference to have a united kingdom as i think it keeps more evils away than it creates


Where did I say I wanted a barter system?

So, a united kingdom keeps away more evils than it creates?  So how big should that kingdom be?  Europe?  The Northern Hemisphere?  The World?



> you say power to the people does the electoral system not provide that ?


Do you think it does?  I think "representative democracy" is the opposite of what it says.  Rather than parliament carrying out the will of the people, I think it imposes the will of the powerful on the people.  In fact, I think that's what it's for.  History confirms this.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i much prefer a united kingdom to preserve peace and stability



And that would not be the case should the union dissolve?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes i think that just about covers all if not most of your views on the subject.


As did the post you complained about.  You seem to have reading comprehension issues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> interesting theory but all tribes and i think calling any group a tribe is ok must have a leader does it not and that denotes being elected to that position by the group , if you could have a country of loners and the barter system back , your theory might stack up but i cant see it , regarding wars every struggle for power and resources causes friction with winners and losers its sad but a fact , like i said before its my prefference to have a united kingdom as i think it keeps more evils away than it creates



You take the idea of election to leadership for granted, but for most of the post-Christian era that hasn't been the case (we don't *know* about pre-Christian laders, although we *do* know that some relict tribes in various outposts throughout the world use monarchic systems, and others use electoral systems). It's only within the last century that the UK has had a "universal" (actually adult) franchise. Before that, so-called electoral democracy was even less democratic than it currently is.
The idea of decentralisation of power to a local level, with a universal franchise and perhaps a rotating period of civic service, doesn't obviate confederations of local groups forming into regional blocs for trading or whatever. It does, however, do away with a central government that is easily subverted to the needs of the few, and away from the needs of the many, not least by not over-relying on an electoral system, but also drawing on those fulfilling their civic service obligations.

For me, the last 30 years have shown that while the UK of GB & NI might be a nice concept for those who govern, it hasn't done much service to the people, the voters and their families, of the members of the union. Scotland has had it's territorial waters over-fished, and it's sub-sea resources tapped out. The Welsh and (mostly) northern English and Midlanders saw their traditional sources of employment destroyed for political purposes, and Ulster has seen the death of people and the death of industry due to UK politics. Add to that a social  and economic divide that can't, under the current regime, contract, and I don't see much worth preserving. If electing leaders in the current mode gets us more of the same, then I'm not interested


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i much prefer a united kingdom to preserve peace and stability



You don't need close political and economic union to have peace and stability. The reality is that instability is too expensive to be worthwhile, and would serve no purpose.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2012)

In what state are comparable European militaries?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 13, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Where did I say I wanted a barter system?
> 
> So, a united kingdom keeps away more evils than it creates? So how big should that kingdom be? Europe? The Northern Hemisphere? The World?
> 
> Do you think it does? I think "representative democracy" is the opposite of what it says. Rather than parliament carrying out the will of the people, I think it imposes the will of the powerful on the people. In fact, I think that's what it's for. History confirms this.


it used to be an empire


----------



## john cooper (Jan 13, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You take the idea of election to leadership for granted, but for most of the post-Christian era that hasn't been the case (we don't *know* about pre-Christian laders, although we *do* know that some relict tribes in various outposts throughout the world use monarchic systems, and others use electoral systems). It's only within the last century that the UK has had a "universal" (actually adult) franchise. Before that, so-called electoral democracy was even less democratic than it currently is.
> The idea of decentralisation of power to a local level, with a universal franchise and perhaps a rotating period of civic service, doesn't obviate confederations of local groups forming into regional blocs for trading or whatever. It does, however, do away with a central government that is easily subverted to the needs of the few, and away from the needs of the many, not least by not over-relying on an electoral system, but also drawing on those fulfilling their civic service obligations.
> 
> For me, the last 30 years have shown that while the UK of GB & NI might be a nice concept for those who govern, it hasn't done much service to the people, the voters and their families, of the members of the union. Scotland has had it's territorial waters over-fished, and it's sub-sea resources tapped out. The Welsh and (mostly) northern English and Midlanders saw their traditional sources of employment destroyed for political purposes, and Ulster has seen the death of people and the death of industry due to UK politics. Add to that a social and economic divide that can't, under the current regime, contract, and I don't see much worth preserving. If electing leaders in the current mode gets us more of the same, then I'm not interested


interesting viewpoint


----------



## john cooper (Jan 13, 2012)

can britain be invaded ? with trident and our alliances with america and europe no i dont think it can be , now if the union breaks up internal strive i would say is inevitable .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 13, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> As did the post you complained about. You seem to have reading comprehension issues.


you are quite correct in assuming i find it hard to comprehend you that is .


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You're really getting ideas.


 
This thread has got boring so I am recalling this post from the olden days so I can respond with a 'you are a nob'


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 14, 2012)

Iranian inflatable butt plugs are the the big threat ... allegedly.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> it used to be an empire


Oh, I see - you were referring only to the United Kingdom; I thought you mean a united kingdom. Punctuation does matter.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 14, 2012)

ime a literary non conformist hence the spelling errors ime aware there are those who see it as important i dont , ime anti punctuation also for the same reasons although i do slip up occasionally , as for being invaded ime thinking chinese could be the next rulers on this fly spec .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In what state are comparable European militaries?



Pretty much the same as ours. Germany's is probably in the best state, if only because a lot of their _materiel_ is of recent manufacture (within the last 15 years). The rest of them have many of the same problems as ours (reduced personnel, ageing kit, existential angst), they're just more circumspect about noising those facts about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> can britain be invaded ? with trident and our alliances with america and europe no i dont think it can be , now if the union breaks up internal strive i would say is inevitable .



Any landmass can be invaded. The important question is whether it can be held. Deluding oneself that possession of a fairly antiquated weapons system and diplomatic and political ties with the halfwits across the water makes a difference is a waste of effort.

As for inevitability, on what basis would invasion be more likely after the dissolution of union than before it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Iranian inflatable butt plugs are the the big threat ... allegedly.



AKA I.E.D.s - Inserted Explosive Devices.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a literary non conformist hence the spelling errors ime aware there are those who see it as important i dont , ime anti punctuation also for the same reasons although i do slip up occasionally , as for being invaded ime thinking chinese could be the next rulers on this fly spec .


 
sure you aint just functionally illiterate?


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 14, 2012)

Britain is ideal for invasion.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2012)

no it isn't. As the bosche found out. There is merit in the idea that if you took ireland and used it as a staging ground you could have a square go tho.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 14, 2012)

That's no plan for invasion.  First you have to destroy its defenses.

It would be much easier to isolate it from trade and support than other countries.  The terrain is good for bombing and long range missiles.  There's really not much room to hide.  Major cities could be leveled with super bombs.  Then you invade.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> That's no plan for invasion. First you have to destroy its defenses.
> 
> It would be much easier to isolate it from trade and support than other countries. The terrain is good for bombing and long range missiles. There's really not much room to hide. Major cities could be leveled with super bombs. Then you invade.



...and have to rebuild all the infrastructure you've destroyed in order to reap any benefit.

Of course, that's been the US military-industrial complex's _modus operandi_ for a while now, hasn't it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> AKA I.E.D.s - Inserted Explosive Devices.



Only if you over-inflate 'em


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> That's no plan for invasion. First you have to destroy its defenses.
> 
> It would be much easier to isolate it from trade and support than other countries. The terrain is good for bombing and long range missiles. There's really not much room to hide. Major cities could be leveled with super bombs. Then you invade.


 
Thats a strategy predicated on air and economic superiority. If we mined like we did in ww2 ever inch of beach would cost a landing force many many lives. Then you have the natives to deal with. 10 british nans could sink the fucking nimitz with a well timed glare.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a literary non conformist hence the spelling errors ime aware there are those who see it as important i dont , ime anti punctuation also for the same reasons although i do slip up occasionally , as for being invaded ime thinking chinese could be the next rulers on this fly spec .


I've nothing against spelling or punctuation reform as a principle, but you've just shown how confusion can thereby created due to ambiguity.  I thought you were talking about united kingdoms in general, as in kingdoms which are united.  But it turns out you were talking about _the_ United Kingdom, as in the largest state on these islands we inhabit.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 15, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Thats a strategy predicated on air and economic superiority. If we mined like we did in ww2 ever inch of beach would cost a landing force many many lives. Then you have the natives to deal with. 10 british nans could sink the fucking nimitz with a well timed glare.



It's the state of warfare these days.  We've seen it demonstrated for the last 20 years.  Once Britain's air force and missile defense is neutralized it's over.  Tanks and other hardware can be spotted through clouds with infrared radar and eliminated from the air without firing a single shot at their enemy counterparts.  WW2 was a long time ago.

Speaking of WW2 - don't forget the food shortages.  The US kept the British fed otherwise the Axis plan might have worked.



> At the start of World War II (1939), the United Kingdom imported 20 million tons of foodstuffs per year (70%), including more than 50% of its meat, 70% of its cheese and sugar, nearly 80% of fruits and about 70% of cereals and fats. The population was between 46 million (46,038 thousand as measured in the 1931 census) and 52 million (53,225 thousand as measured in the 1951 census).[3] It was one of the principal strategies of the Axis to attack shipping bound for the United Kingdom, restricting British industry and potentially starving the nation into submission.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2012)

you sank my battleship


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2012)

I notice your shiny modern warfare plans have not included a strategy for dealing with irate nans btw


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a literary non conformist hence the spelling errors ime aware there are those who see it as important i dont , ime anti punctuation also for the same reasons although i do slip up occasionally , as for being invaded ime thinking chinese could be the next rulers on this fly spec .



The last "literary non-conformist" we had here was a twit who called himself THINK!. It was an ironic name, given that he didn't display much ability to do so. His idea of non-conformism was to leave the letter "e" off of the end of words, because the twit thought it was superfluous. He also wanted there to be a single world language - one that *he* would decide the rules for.
As you might guess from such megalomania, he was considered by many to bea a bit "touched in the head".


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 15, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I notice your shiny modern warfare plans have not included a strategy for dealing with irate nans btw



I'm sure there's an irate nan seeking missle....at least in the works.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The last "literary non-conformist" we had here was a twit who called himself THINK!. It was an ironic name, given that he didn't display much ability to do so. His idea of non-conformism was to leave the letter "e" off of the end of words, because the twit thought it was superfluous. He also wanted there to be a single world language - one that *he* would decide the rules for.
> As you might guess from such megalomania, he was considered by many to bea a bit "touched in the head".


the man or woman does sound as though he or she needs hlp .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 16, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> It's the state of warfare these days. We've seen it demonstrated for the last 20 years. Once Britain's air force and missile defense is neutralized it's over. Tanks and other hardware can be spotted through clouds with infrared radar and eliminated from the air without firing a single shot at their enemy counterparts. WW2 was a long time ago.
> 
> Speaking of WW2 - don't forget the food shortages. The US kept the British fed otherwise the Axis plan might have worked.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom


i agree and robotics is the next big thing ..maybe we will be invaded by robots ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I've nothing against spelling or punctuation reform as a principle, but you've just shown how confusion can thereby created due to ambiguity. I thought you were talking about united kingdoms in general, as in kingdoms which are united. But it turns out you were talking about _the_ United Kingdom, as in the largest state on these islands we inhabit.


yes that is quite correct it took a while but you finally got there .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Thats a strategy predicated on air and economic superiority. If we mined like we did in ww2 ever inch of beach would cost a landing force many many lives. Then you have the natives to deal with. 10 british nans could sink the fucking nimitz with a well timed glare.


is the enemy already here ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2012)

yes, I'm a fifth columnist and have links to Iran. Hiz hiz hizbollah. Etc


----------



## john cooper (Jan 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> sure you aint just functionally illiterate?


are illiterate people now a target seems unfair , you are probably benefiting from an education they havnt < no punctuation !


----------



## john cooper (Jan 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> yes, I'm a fifth columnist and have links to Iran. Hiz hiz hizbollah. Etc


ime a white witch but i dont brag about it .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a white witch but i dont brag about it .


you're a thick fuck and you shouldn't brag about it


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a white witch but i dont brag about it .


 
do as thou wilt (an it harm none) then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> do as thou wilt (an it harm none) then.


no, that's crowley - do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. love is the law, love under will. it's from the holy books of thelema.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes that is quite correct it took a while but you finally got there .


No, it took me until your next post.  However, if you punctuated properly, people would stand a better chance of understanding you immediately.

Mind you, once understood, it turns out you have nothing to say anyway.


----------



## Hulot (Jan 16, 2012)

Aren't the conventions of written English an important part of English culture?


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 16, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> if you care that much about it then take up Morris dancing , or alternatively become a pearly king , clicking your heels while wolfing down copious amounts of jellied eels .



All the good things in life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a white witch but i dont brag about it .









John Cooper, in a fetching velour bathrobe ritual robe, preparing to administer the five-fold kiss on a celebrant, yesterday.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> no, that's crowley - do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. love is the law, love under will. it's from the holy books of thelema.



That was actually a paraphrase of the Wiccan Rede from Dottie, which as any fule kno, derives from Crowley, but is not the same as.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That was actually a paraphrase of the Wiccan Rede from Dottie, which as any fule kno, derives from Crowley, but is not the same as.


Which is a from Assisi think...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Which is a from Assisi think...



The best lines are always nicked from somewhere else, aren't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2012)

Mine certainly are


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i agree and robotics is the next big thing ..maybe we will be invaded by robots ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 17, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> No, it took me until your next post. However, if you punctuated properly, people would stand a better chance of understanding you immediately.
> 
> Mind you, once understood, it turns out you have nothing to say anyway.


were did this animosity come from ? have you failed in life maybe and looking for excuses for your own inate views .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 17, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> All the good things in life.


i have been a morris dancer ,it was great fun .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 17, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


>


very good , not quite the robots i was thinking about but close .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> John Cooper, in a fetching velour bathrobe ritual robe, preparing to administer the five-fold kiss on a celebrant, yesterday.


its strange you should say that as ive just looking at a site , and i think its interesting (villagewisewomen)


----------



## john cooper (Jan 17, 2012)

Hulot said:


> Aren't the conventions of written English an important part of English culture?


you are the only one who picked up on that , you are right of coarse maybe i was being flipant .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2012)

john cooper said:


> were did this animosity come from ?


It's not animosity, but a specific diagnosis of your posts: I've tried to engage you in discussion, but every question I've asked, you've declined to answer, and every post I've made, you've failed to understand. You seem to have nothing to say on culture, or on invasion, other than that you're a proud Englishman.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2012)

OK, John.  Let's backtrack a bit, shall we?  Remember a few pages ago you said you agreed with me on something?  It was post 236.  You said: "i like this reply ...and cannot disagree".

I then pointed out that it wasn't a reply but a series of questions.  I asked if you had any answers to the questions, and you said (post 245) "nothing really comes to mind".  You later said (on the 8th of January) that you couldn't rush these things.

Let's go back to post 236: what was it you liked about my post (230), with which you said you couldn't disagree?  You felt moved at the time to say you liked it and couldn't disagree; what was it you thought you liked and that you were not disagreeing with?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 17, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, John. Let's backtrack a bit, shall we? Remember a few pages ago you said you agreed with me on something? It was post 236. You said: "i like this reply ...and cannot disagree".
> 
> I then pointed out that it wasn't a reply but a series of questions. I asked if you had any answers to the questions, and you said (post 245) "nothing really comes to mind". You later said (on the 8th of January) that you couldn't rush these things.
> 
> Let's go back to post 236: what was it you liked about my post (230), with which you said you couldn't disagree? You felt moved at the time to say you liked it and couldn't disagree; what was it you thought you liked and that you were not disagreeing with?


its not what you write , its the fact you have to keep back tracking please try to keep up to speed


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2012)

john cooper said:


> back tracking


Please show me where.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 17, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Please show me where.



Why are you bothering with this idiot?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Why are you bothering with this idiot?


Well, initially I thought I could use his interruption on the subject of culture to encourage a discussion (amongst others). But that didn't work.

I suppose I'm just an optimist.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 17, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, initially I thought I could use his interruption on the subject of culture to encourage a discussion (amongst others). But that didn't work.
> 
> I suppose I'm just an optimist.



Nothing wrong with optimism. I'm always intrigued by people who are uber pats, loving royalty and invoking god. I want to hear their raison d'etre and understand the mindset. To me, jc is a fascinating poster.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2012)

You find a fake pretend right-wing poster who deliberately inserts spelling mistakes and grammatical errors into their posts to cover their tracks to be 'fascinating'? On the basis of their pretend weirdness being genuine? Fascinating,


----------



## john cooper (Jan 18, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Why are you bothering with this idiot?


do you call everyone who is a royalist and staunch unionist an idiot ? if so why is that ?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> do you call everyone who is a royalist and staunch unionist an idiot ? if so why is that ?



Not all royalists and unionists are idiots.  You are, though.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You find a fake pretend right-wing poster who deliberately inserts spelling mistakes and grammatical errors into their posts to cover their tracks to be 'fascinating'? On the basis of their pretend weirdness being genuine? Fascinating,



How do you know he's fake or pretend, mr butchers? I don't agree with a single word he says but I still find him fascinating...


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> do you call everyone who is a royalist and staunch unionist an idiot ? if so why is that ?



Not all royalists or unionists. Just the idiotic ones, like you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You find a fake pretend right-wing poster who deliberately inserts spelling mistakes and grammatical errors into their posts to cover their tracks to be 'fascinating'? On the basis of their pretend weirdness being genuine? Fascinating,


isn't a fake pretend right winger a real right winger?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> do you call everyone who is a royalist and staunch unionist an idiot ?



If he doesn't, he should. The union imposes links. Don't you think it'd be better for all parties if they had a say in what links there were?

As for Royalism, what's the point in giving respect to a family who hold a position through accident of birth?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> As for Royalism, what's the point in giving respect to a family who hold a position through accident of birth?


An argument won centuries ago by Tom Paine.  It's frankly bizarre that it still needs to be made.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 18, 2012)

I'd support a royal family so long as it was a shamanic magic-mushroom-eating gynarchy headed by Cate Blanchett. She was good in the film about Elizabeth the First: face all covered in toxic white paint, "observe . . . I am married to England" - makes you proud.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

in russia and france murdering their royal families only brought corruption on a massive scale .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

in my garden ive raised the biggest union flag its marvelous , so if we are invaded they will know a patriot lives here .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> An argument won centuries ago by Tom Paine. It's frankly bizarre that it still needs to be made.


we live in a class system as it not always been so ? the royals at the top then you go down .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not all royalists and unionists are idiots. You are, though.


its a shame that you think ime an idiot , ime not ime a patriot


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> in russia and france murdering their royal families only brought corruption on a massive scale .


And that was the cause was it?

So, there was no corruption in either country before regicide, and corruption that existed thereafter has been proven to have been _caused by_ regicide rather than other factors.  And you're going to cite the studies which prove that now, are you?

No, thought not.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> isn't a fake pretend right winger a real right winger?


a fake ? i stand by what i believe ime a true patriot .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> And that was the cause was it?
> 
> So, there was no corruption in either country before regicide, and corruption that existed thereafter has been proven to have been _caused by_ regicide rather than other factors. And you're going to cite the studies which prove that now, are you?
> 
> No, thought not.


gangsters now rule russia and a playboy france ....great !


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> we live in a class system as it not always been so ? the royals at the top then you go down .


So because there have always been classes, having a royal family is a good thing?  That's your argument is it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> gangsters now rule russia and a playboy france ....great !


And a man with a shiny face is PM in the UK.  What is your point?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

my point is really quite simple , tradition is important and the royal family are a big part of that , its who we english are !


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

it defends freedom thats why most of the worlds population do business here most of all freedom of speech .


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> in my garden ive raised the biggest union flag its marvelous , so if we are invaded they will know a patriot lives here .



No, they'll think you're running a tourist shop and come asking for souvenir tea towels and routemaster models.

Stick the old Cross of St George up. At worst they'll think you've got a roadside snack bar and that has to be better than a tourist shop.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

w


danny la rouge said:


> And a man with a shiny face is PM in the UK. What is your point?


 the goverment you have now switched to the pm ?? like popcorn you bounce from one topic to another


----------



## john cooper (Jan 19, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> No, they'll think you're running a tourist shop and come asking for souvenir tea towels and routemaster models.
> 
> Stick the old Cross of St George up. At worst they'll think you've got a roadside snack bar and that has to be better than a tourist shop.


cross of st george yes a splendid idea ..at the moment ime stressing the union angle as its in peril .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> w
> the goverment you have now switched to the pm ?? like popcorn you bounce from one topic to another


Try and see if you can fathom what my point was.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> a fake ? i stand by what i believe ime a true patriot .



As someone who doesn't subscribe to all that misty eyed romanticism, could you please explain to me what a "true patriot" is?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> in russia and france murdering their royal families only brought corruption on a massive scale .



Who said anything about murder?

And if you think that Bourbon France and the Tsarist empire weren't as corrupt as what succeeded them, you're doolally-tap.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> in my garden ive raised the biggest union flag its marvelous , so if we are invaded they will know a patriot lives here .



A true _mensch_ only ever raises one flag - the Jolly Roger.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> we live in a class system as it not always been so ?



And because we've always had one, we should do nothing to change that?



> the royals at the top then you go down .



You can go down on the royals all you want, matey. I'm not going to, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> it defends freedom thats why most of the worlds population do business here most of all freedom of speech .



Have you been drinking the Toilet Duck?
Our traditions don't "defend freedom". Where were they when the government removed the right to _habeas corpus_ from a section of the population? How were freedoms defended by the institution of Diplock courts?

As for most of the worlds population doing business here, many of them also do business in every other major city with a stock market, and the reason business loves it here is because of the City's existence as an effectively "off-shore" zone.

Get real.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> As someone who doesn't subscribe to all that misty eyed romanticism, could you please explain to me what a "true patriot" is?



It's whatever the person laying claim to the title wants it to mean. Donald Rumsfeld was hailed as a true patriot, as was Benito Mussolini. It's a moveable feast.


----------



## Random (Jan 19, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Once Britain's air force and missile defense is neutralized it's over. Tanks and other hardware can be spotted through clouds with infrared radar and eliminated from the air without firing a single shot at their enemy counterparts.


 All your saying is that the Britain could be invaded by a far superior enemy. So what? Isn't this true for every place on Earth? And the ease of isolating the UK's supply means that any occupier would have similarly vulnerable supply lines.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 19, 2012)

Random said:


> All your saying is that the Britain could be invaded by a far superior enemy. So what? Isn't this true for every place on Earth? And the ease of isolating the UK's supply means that any occupier would have similarly vulnerable supply lines.



The question is "can Britain be invaded?".

The invader wouldn't have to worry about supply lines if it owned the ocean.  And France would most likely support whoever invaded Britain anyway so attacking the occupier would be that much more perilous.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> cross of st george yes a splendid idea ..at the moment ime stressing the union angle as its in peril .


I'm sure we'll all still be friends when the union dissolves


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm sure we'll all still be friends when the union dissolves



Fuck that! I'll be on the first cattle raid against the porridge-eaters!


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2012)

Has anyone told him it's "I'm" yet?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 19, 2012)

mauvais said:


> Has anyone told him it's "I'm" yet?


We thought we'd work on "it's" first...


----------



## john cooper (Jan 20, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> As someone who doesn't subscribe to all that misty eyed romanticism, could you please explain to me what a "true patriot" is?


its knowing your place in society royalty at the top then you work downwards .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 20, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Try and see if you can fathom what my point was.


yes again and again ive tried to fathom what your point is . is it a republic led by the pope ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who said anything about murder?
> 
> And if you think that Bourbon France and the Tsarist empire weren't as corrupt as what succeeded them, you're doolally-tap.


lesser of 2 evils i would say .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's whatever the person laying claim to the title wants it to mean. Donald Rumsfeld was hailed as a true patriot, as was Benito Mussolini. It's a moveable feast.


yes and they both had vision , and an idea which they persued


----------



## john cooper (Jan 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> A true _mensch_ only ever raises one flag - the Jolly Roger.


a good idea , i might consider raising the jolly roger as a way of describing goverment cuts , theft isnt it ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you been drinking the Toilet Duck?
> Our traditions don't "defend freedom". Where were they when the government removed the right to _habeas corpus_ from a section of the population? How were freedoms defended by the institution of Diplock courts?
> 
> As for most of the worlds population doing business here, many of them also do business in every other major city with a stock market, and the reason business loves it here is because of the City's existence as an effectively "off-shore" zone.
> ...


yes i agree , i do find myself agreeing a lot with your writings.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 20, 2012)

Random said:


> All your saying is that the Britain could be invaded by a far superior enemy. So what? Isn't this true for every place on Earth? And the ease of isolating the UK's supply means that any occupier would have similarly vulnerable supply lines.


we have already been invaded ..look around !


----------



## john cooper (Jan 20, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm sure we'll all still be friends when the union dissolves


thats just my point i dont think we will all be friends ..look at history .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 20, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes again and again ive tried to fathom what your point is . is it a republic led by the pope ?


It wasn't hard, but I'll walk you through it.

In reply to my post:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/can-britain-be-invaded.275885/page-14#post-10846031


> And that was the cause was it?
> 
> So, there was no corruption in either country before regicide, and corruption that existed thereafter has been proven to have been caused by regicide rather than other factors. And you're going to cite the studies which prove that now, are you?
> 
> No, thought not.



You wrote:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/can-britain-be-invaded.275885/page-14#post-10846034


> gangsters now rule russia and a playboy france ....great !



So, no evidence, no studies, no taking into account corruption that existed prior to regicide, no taking into account of other factors that may be responsible for any current corruption.

No, your entire argument is: "gangsters rule Russia, and there is a playboy who rules France".  This tells us nothing about anything.  You are confusing cause and correlation.

It is like (as I put it) saying our current PM has a shiny face.  My point being - and so what?  We have a Queen, but that has nothing at all to do with Cameron's shiny face.  My granddad drank tea just before he died.  That does not mean tea caused his death.

However, I think you actually knew this.  There seems to be a pattern whereby you ignore, skip, or "misunderstand" in a bizarre way any question or point you find inconvenient.  I'm beginning to agree with Butchers that you're a fake on a wind-up.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 20, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> ........... I'm beginning to agree with Butchers that you're a fake on a wind-up.



Not sure about him being fake, but he's certainly on a wind-up.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Not sure about him being fake, but he's certainly on a wind-up.





danny la rouge said:


> It wasn't hard, but I'll walk you through it.
> 
> In reply to my post:
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/can-britain-be-invaded.275885/page-14#post-10846031
> ...



and ive wrote many explaining myself and all you come up with are reflections of past writings , ive explained ime a royalist and monarchist i know it dosnt sit well with you ..deal with it !


----------



## john cooper (Jan 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Not sure about him being fake, but he's certainly on a wind-up.


IME A TRUE ENGLISH PATRIOT ... see how easy it is to say , a royalist and monarchist and i love the royal family and all they stand for ..clear enough ?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 21, 2012)

Lol, is this john cooper guy still at it?! Has he actually come up with much in the way of argument/reasons other than 'i wuvs the royals they make this country gwate'?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 21, 2012)

john cooper said:


> and ive wrote many explaining myself and all you come up with are reflections of past writings , ive explained ime a royalist and monarchist i know it dosnt sit well with you ..deal with it !


Here's how it works: you make an assertion, you back it up.  Otherwise why should anyone take you seriously?


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> The question is "can Britain be invaded?"


Which you answered by saying that Britain was _easier_ to invade than other countries. I'm asking you to back that up. Apart from the fact of the island being densly populated and there being few mountains to run to, I can't see anything in your argument. J

ust saying that Britain could be invaded by a vastly superior enemy that controlled all the seas, etc etc isn't adding much.

Unless your real point is that Britain can only be invaded by the USA? Which would mean that Britain is actually rather _harder_ to invade than most countries.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Here's how it works: you make an assertion, you back it up. Otherwise why should anyone take you seriously?


Danny there's a special place in anarchist heaven for people with the patience of you and Violent Panda.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 21, 2012)

Random said:


> Which you answered by saying that Britain was _easier_ to invade than other countries. I'm asking you to back that up. Apart from the fact of the island being densly populated and there being few mountains to run to, I can't see anything in your argument. J
> 
> ust saying that Britain could be invaded by a vastly superior enemy that controlled all the seas, etc etc isn't adding much.
> 
> Unless your real point is that Britain can only be invaded by the USA? Which would mean that Britain is actually rather _harder_ to invade than most countries.



Again...."can Britain be invaded" was the question - not with conditions on the strength of the attacker.   You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.  Yes it would be easier considering Britain's unique weaknesses.  It isn't landlocked or even connected to another country by land.  There's no one to roll tanks or food in to help.  As I noted, Britian is susceptible to starving by siege.  The invader destroys Britain's defenses and waits to invade in due time.  There might not even be a fight when surrender is the best way to feed the people.

You agree that Britain can be invaded.  You seem to want to add restraints on who and how it could be done.  We're only talking theory - not the probability of it happening next tuesday.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Again...."can Britain be invaded" was the question - not with conditions on the strength of the attacker.  You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.


I'm talking about your statement that Britain is easier to invade, one that I'm not convinced of. Why are you so shy about defending something that you've said? Odd.

You've again said that being an island makes somewhere easier to invade. That's a controversial opinion, since throughout history it has been the exact opposite. It was land borders which allowed Russia and Germany to carry out so many successful invasions of neighbours.

Only a power with a nave much greater than the UK state's one could blockade Britain. So, again, we seem to be faced with you saying a tautlogy, that Britain can e invaded by a power that can inade it. Not very useful or analytical.



> You agree that Britain can be invaded. You seem to want to add restraints on who and how it could be done.


 Yes, as otherwise this thread would be a content-free list of people saying "yes." Given the right hypothetical circumstances anywhere can be invaded. The _likelihood_ is the interesting part. You know, the discussion?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 21, 2012)

surely we should be looking at what Britians geo political defence experts say to get to the bottom of this . Which is why i posted a link to that stuff from that professor at Dartmouth naval college which everyone fucking ignored.

and fuck off john cooper, hundred posts in a thread . fuck off.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 21, 2012)

Random said:


> I'm talking about your statement that Britain is easier to invade, one that I'm not convinced of. Why are you so shy about defending something that you've said? Odd.
> 
> You've again said that being an island makes somewhere easier to invade. That's a controversial opinion, since throughout history it has been the exact opposite. It was land borders which allowed Russia and Germany to carry out so many successful invasions of neighbours.
> 
> ...



Yes Britain would be 'easier' - easier than China, Russia, and any landlocked country.  In ancient times being an island may have been a deterrent to some extent.  I guess there's a list somewhere of early civilizations who didn't invade Britain.  But ancient times are over.

Again....the question was _*"can Britain be invaded"*_.  Certainly it can - it can be destroyed - or brought to it's knees and then invaded.  The "likelyhood" and how strong an army it would take is for another discussion. You seem to have difficulty accepting it and want to add limits to the question.  So, for the 3rd or 4th time - yes it can be invaded.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> surely we should be looking at what Britians geo political defence experts say to get to the bottom of this . Which is why i posted a link to that stuff from that professor at Dartmouth naval college which everyone fucking ignored.



It's more that while military academics often have worthwhile things to say, they're also often a little blinkered perspective-wise, and *tend* (and I stress that they only *tend*) to adopt a perspective that inflates the capabilities of all sides of a military contact.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Yes Britain would be 'easier' - easier than China, Russia, and any landlocked country. In ancient times being an island may have been a deterrent to some extent. I guess there's a list somewhere of early civilizations who didn't invade Britain. But ancient times are over.


 Are you now just being a clown on purpose? You know that Britain being an island stopped invasions several times during the last two hundred years, right up to WW2. If the USSR had launched a land invasion Britain would certainly have come off a lot better than, say, France; a country of similar size and resources, but with a continental European land border rather than a sea one.

Britain is certainly an easier invasion target than China or Russia, but it is those countries' massive military resources which make them harder, not the water. One reason why the USA has been uninvaded for so long is that it is basically an island, with land borders only with two weak neighbours.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> The "likelyhood" and how strong an army it would take is for another discussion.


No, it's a discussion that you've already started to take part in. Why do you keep insisting that you're not? If you're now feeling silly about your claims about navies and islands just say so.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 21, 2012)

Random said:


> Are you now just being a clown on purpose? You know that Britain being an island stopped invasions several times during the last two hundred years, right up to WW2. If the USSR had launched a land invasion Britain would certainly have come off a lot better than, say, France; a country of similar size and resources, but with a continental European land border rather than a sea one.
> 
> Britain is certainly an easier invasion target than China or Russia, but it is those countries' massive military resources which make them harder, not the water. One reason why the USA has been uninvaded for so long is that it is basically an island, with land borders only with two weak neighbours.



Well I give you props for trying.  Citing that Britain's natural moat has kept some would-be invaders at bay "throughout history" (now adjusted to "last 200 years"...because it just didn't stop everybody) - big deal.  Modern warfare is a different story and Britain is no longer a superpower.  Even back in the 80s it almost came within a hair of not being able to send a fleet to Argentina.  And Argentina managed to sink a destroyer.  I'm not sure what you think of Britain's navy but it isn't the one of the glory days.

You're missing a point on why invading a landlocked country would be harder than Britain.  It would be harder for the US to invade Uzbekistan because doing so would require other countries to assist.  We saw Turkey eliminate a whole division from the initial assault in the Iraq war.  Things can get messy like that.

....so.  The question is can Britain be invaded.  I say yes, noting it's weaknesses.  You essentially argue "but only by a superior force".  Well that's the game Random.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's more that while military academics often have worthwhile things to say, they're also often a little blinkered perspective-wise, and *tend* (and I stress that they only *tend*) to adopt a perspective that inflates the capabilities of all sides of a military contact.


 
in fairness i did not notice either Sloan or Mackinder doing any such thing.


----------



## Random (Jan 22, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Well I give you props for trying.


 Are you still arguing while saying that you're not arguing? Like I said before, if you're not enjoying being wrong just stop.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 22, 2012)

Random said:


> Are you still arguing while saying that you're not arguing? Like I said before, if you're not enjoying being wrong just stop.



So you agree that Britain can be invaded by a superior force.


----------



## Random (Jan 22, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> So you agree that Britain can be invaded by a superior force.


Yes, I already said so. And it seems that the list of these suitably superior forces is a really short one. As I said earlier on in the thread, Britain is probably one of the places least likely to be invaded


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 22, 2012)

Random said:


> Yes, I already said so. And it seems that the list of these suitably superior forces is a really short one. As I said earlier on in the thread, Britain is probably one of the places least likely to be invaded



It's two separate questions - whether Britain can be invaded (thread topic) or the likelihood of it being invaded.


----------



## Random (Jan 22, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> It's two separate questions - whether Britain can be invaded (thread topic) or the likelihood of it being invaded.


"Can Britain be invaded" also involves the discussion of "under what conditions can Britain be invaded". It's the discussion we're having right now. Stop being so weird!


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 22, 2012)

Random said:


> "Can Britain be invaded" also involves the discussion of "under what conditions can Britain be invaded". It's the discussion we're having right now. Stop being so weird!



Not necessarily true if people are deluded into thinking their defense capabilities are greater than they really are.  To answer the question by simply saying the likelihood is low because of geopolitical standing is not really an answer.  First order of business is to come to reality on Britain's ability to fight off an invader under whatever strategies might be used to invade.  Because that's what the question is about - a hostile military action by a committed enemy on British soil.  It's an _invasion_ - politics is kaput at that point.

Don't get comfortable thinking that the US and Britain can't be enemies again.  Wars start in strange ways.  A WW1 scenario might have happened say, if your PM went hunting with Cheney.  The UK would've been like 'wtf' and the white house might have responded with 'stfu'.  Then there could have been weeks of heated 'no you stfu' hurled at each other till it escalated to military action.  There's likely similar situations with other countries that could result in a breakdown of political relationships resulting in all out war.


----------



## Random (Jan 22, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> First order of business is to come to reality on Britain's ability to fight off an invader under whatever strategies might be used to invade.


I think that's an interesting question to discuss. But you have to also know what capabilites the invading power has, and then geo-politics comes in unavoidably. An invader with assumed unlimited resources can invade any hypothetical place.



> Wars start in strange ways. A WW1 scenario might have happened say, if your PM went hunting with Cheney.


 Don't be silly.



> There's likely similar situations with other countries that could result in a breakdown of political relationships resulting in all out war.


 Stop it, it's embarrassing.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 22, 2012)

Random said:


> Which you answered by saying that Britain was _easier_ to invade than other countries. I'm asking you to back that up. Apart from the fact of the island being densly populated and there being few mountains to run to, I can't see anything in your argument. J
> 
> ust saying that Britain could be invaded by a vastly superior enemy that controlled all the seas, etc etc isn't adding much.
> 
> Unless your real point is that Britain can only be invaded by the USA? Which would mean that Britain is actually rather _harder_ to invade than most countries.


you have missed my point tatally . we have already been invaded ..look around !


----------



## Random (Jan 22, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you have missed my point tatally . we have already been invaded ..look around !


No, I've ignored your point, as I don't think it's worth answering.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 22, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> surely we should be looking at what Britians geo political defence experts say to get to the bottom of this . Which is why i posted a link to that stuff from that professor at Dartmouth naval college which everyone fucking ignored.
> 
> and fuck off john cooper, hundred posts in a thread . fuck off.


bad language is the sign of a moron


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 22, 2012)

john cooper said:


> bad language is the sign of a moron



And an idiot is someone who thinks that working 9 to 5 is the same thing as slavery.


----------



## Random (Jan 22, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> surely we should be looking at what Britians geo political defence experts say to get to the bottom of this . Which is why i posted a link to that stuff from that professor at Dartmouth naval college which everyone fucking ignored.


Sorry for missing that, CR sounds interesting. But I can't read a whole book on a computer screen, especially not those Google book previews which miss out various pages and so it's hard to get into them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you have missed my point tatally . we have already been invaded ..look around !



By whom, John?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2012)

john cooper said:


> bad language is the sign of a moron



Poorly articulated and badly-spelled written language is the mark of a social inadequate.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 22, 2012)

Random said:


> I think that's an interesting question to discuss. But you have to also know what capabilites the invading power has, and then geo-politics comes in unavoidably. An invader with assumed unlimited resources can invade any hypothetical place.
> 
> Don't be silly.
> 
> Stop it, it's embarrassing.



We have talked a little about capabilities the US has...or at least I have.  The question is still a yes or no type answer.  The answer is yes.  But for some reason you want to argue that due to the political setting it's not feasible for countries to invade....  So you're saying yes and no.


----------



## ymu (Jan 22, 2012)

So, the workers, students, disabled and benefit claimants hit the streets, the government calls out the army, the squaddies switch sides and we take Westminster.

Could we hold off an invasion force from across the Atlantic?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Sorry for missing that, CR sounds interesting. But I can't read a whole book on a computer screen, especially not those Google book previews which miss out various pages and so it's hard to get into them.



id agree, its much better to buy the entire tome on amazon . must do it meself .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Poorly articulated and badly-spelled written language is the mark of a social inadequate.


you obviously think your writings are pretty damn good , are you self opinionated perhaps ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 23, 2012)

Random said:


> Sorry for missing that, CR sounds interesting. But I can't read a whole book on a computer screen, especially not those Google book previews which miss out various pages and so it's hard to get into them.


i want peoples opinions not extracts from a book , are books not to be trusted , just another form of propoganda are they not ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> By whom, John?


do you live on an island of shetland by any chance ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 23, 2012)

ymu said:


> So, the workers, students, disabled and benefit claimants hit the streets, the government calls out the army, the squaddies switch sides and we take Westminster.
> 
> Could we hold off an invasion force from across the Atlantic?


ime assuming you mean usa , thats all we are now an american early warning system .


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

Who has invaded Britain, john. The Poles?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> And an idiot is someone who thinks that working 9 to 5 is the same thing as slavery.


i just dont think there is any need to tell me to f ...off , are we not educated men ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Who has invaded Britain, john. The Poles?


amongst others yes indeed .


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

So taking the British up on the invitation to come work here is an invasion?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> So taking the British up on the invitation to come work here is an invasion?


its an invasion orchestrated by the goverment to provide cheap labour for the fat cats even they now admit its out of control .


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its an invasion orchestrated by the goverment to provide cheap labour for the fat cats even they now admit its out of control .



You don't know what the word invasion means do you?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its an invasion orchestrated by the goverment to provide cheap labour for the fat cats even they now admit its out of control .


Why do you keep coming up with reflections of past writings?  We've moved on.  Try to keep up.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> a fake ? i stand by what i believe ime a true patriot .


What is a true patriot & why are you proud of this?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its knowing your place in society royalty at the top then you work downwards .



Why should people have to know their place? Are you against equality?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> we have already been invaded ..look around !



And how do you feel about this "invasion"? Would you have us repatriated? Liquidated?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> bad language is the sign of a moron


And the word "moron" is considered bad form, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you obviously think your writings are pretty damn good , are you self opinionated perhaps ?



"Obviously", John? Not at all. What I *know* is that what I write is coherent and reasonably well-articulated, and that unlike you, I'm happy to say *exactly* what I mean. 

Try again.


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> We have talked a little about capabilities the US has...or at least I have. The question is still a yes or no type answer. The answer is yes. But for some reason you want to argue that due to the political setting it's not feasible for countries to invade.... So you're saying yes and no.


This post is a bit confused. To clarify, are you saying that "the political setting" plays no role in whether a country can be invaded? For one thing, the amount spent on defence, and the people's willingness to resist, are themselves political and social factors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i want peoples opinions not extracts from a book , are books not to be trusted , just another form of propoganda are they not ?



That depends.
Mostly on whether you can be bothered to pick apart the contents and separate the data from the gloss the author puts on the data.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> do you live on an island of shetland by any chance ?



Rather than making replies which I'm sure that you fondly assume are paragons of wit, why not just answer the question, John: By whom?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its an invasion orchestrated by the goverment to provide cheap labour for the fat cats even they now admit its out of control .



In the case of EU member-states, you have exactly the same right to go work in other EU countries if you have a skill worth selling.
How many Brits do you think are currently working in the EU, against how many EU citizens working here?


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2012)

ymu said:


> So, the workers, students, disabled and benefit claimants hit the streets, the government calls out the army, the squaddies switch sides and we take Westminster.
> 
> Could we hold off an invasion force from across the Atlantic?


A North American force could certainly invade Britain, and probably capture all the major cities as well. Then the aim of the British would be to make sure the invaders lost the occupation, through making it cost too much, politically.

The invaders would have a 'legitimate' government set up, probably also headed by the sovereign, and declare a state of emergency and suspend freedom of assembly, etc. They would couch their actions in terms of fighting terrorism. But if the 'terrorists' had genuine widespread support, then I think the occupation would fail. One important aspect would be the attitude of the EU countries - whether they would also send troops, or want an early end to the occupation to head off instability in Europe.

Hopefully we'd be able to count on a fair amount of solidarity from movements in the EU and in N Am, as well.

There. That's the kind of hypothetical nerdery I like!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the case of EU member-states, you have exactly the same right to go work in other EU countries if you have a skill worth selling.
> How many Brits do you think are currently working in the EU, against how many EU citizens working here?



Actually if you have the numbers handy I'd be interested to know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Actually if you have the numbers handy I'd be interested to know.



Off the top of my head, when I checked in 2009, it was 450,000 UK citzens working in the EU, against 600,000 EU citizens working here, but the EU figure was a "best estimate", based on taxes paid, and after adding a non-tax payer (i.e. "black market worker") premium. I'll see if I can dig up the sources, and see if there's something more up-to-date too (would be interesting to see whether the expected contractions have taken place).


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 23, 2012)

Random said:


> A North American force could certainly invade Britain, and probably capture all the major cities as well. Then the aim of the British would be to make sure the invaders lost the occupation, through making it cost too much, politically.
> 
> The invaders would have a 'legitimate' government set up, probably also headed by the sovereign, and declare a state of emergency and suspend freedom of assembly, etc. They would couch their actions in terms of fighting terrorism. But if the 'terrorists' had genuine widespread support, then I think the occupation would fail. One important aspect would be the attitude of the EU countries - whether they would also send troops, or want an early end to the occupation to head off instability in Europe.
> 
> Hopefully we'd be able to count on a fair amount of solidarity from movements in the EU and in N Am, as well.



I don't think we could resist for very long. We're not like the Chechens or the Pashtuns, we're soft. Also, there's a very extensive surveillance infrastructure already in place which they would try to take over from the outset.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Off the top of my head, when I checked in 2009, it was 450,000 UK citzens working in the EU, against 600,000 EU citizens working here, but the EU figure was a "best estimate", based on taxes paid, and after adding a non-tax payer (i.e. "black market worker") premium. I'll see if I can dig up the sources, and see if there's something more up-to-date too (would be interesting to see whether the expected contractions have taken place).



Cheers!


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Why should people have to know their place? Are you against equality?


you can only be equal amongst people who are like you


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You don't know what the word invasion means do you?


yes ,to be invaded is when a power from outside your society imposes its will on you and changes the norm .


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you can only be equal amongst people who are like you



So here we have it, john cooper is a racist. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> What is a true patriot & why are you proud of this?


a true patriot as ive explained many times , is a person who maintains long held beliefs created by his ancestors over many years and lives to that code forsaking all others .


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> a true patriot as ive explained many times , is a person who maintains long held beliefs created by his ancestors over many years and lives to that code forsaking all others .



By ancestors I presume you mean those invading Angles, Saxons, Norsemen, Normans, French, Dutch and whatnot? Or are you a spokesman for the Celtic nation?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> And how do you feel about this "invasion"? Would you have us repatriated? Liquidated?


how do i feel , simple being invaded by foriegn belief systems will only create conflict and clashes of beliefs .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> And the word "moron" is considered bad form, too.


yes the word moron is meant to reflect a lack of intelegence , hence when i was told to f,,,off i used it , is that not fair ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Obviously", John? Not at all. What I *know* is that what I write is coherent and reasonably well-articulated, and that unlike you, I'm happy to say *exactly* what I mean.
> 
> Try again.


then i appologise for my mistake .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

Random said:


> This post is a bit confused. To clarify, are you saying that "the political setting" plays no role in whether a country can be invaded? For one thing, the amount spent on defence, and the people's willingness to resist, are themselves political and social factors.


no use at all in a corrupt society , and this is , do you not agree ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That depends.
> Mostly on whether you can be bothered to pick apart the contents and separate the data from the gloss the author puts on the data.


who is wise enough to seperate the two ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> By ancestors I presume you mean those invading Angles, Saxons, Norsemen, Normans, French, Dutch and whatnot? Or are you a spokesman for the Celtic nation?


yes exactly , i do mean the celtic races .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Cheers!


you trust goverment figures ? interesting .


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes exactly , i do mean the celtic races .


So you're a pureblooded Celt? No trace of foreign blood at all?


john cooper said:


> you trust goverment figures ? interesting .


Who said anything about trust? They're an indicator, not the gospel truth.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> So here we have it, john cooper is a racist. Who'da thunk it?


i take exception to being called a racist , how have you arrived at this ?????


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i take exception to being called a racist , how have you arrived at this ?????



It's pretty obvious from your statement that equality can only happen when you're among people similar to you plus the way you go on about being "invaded" by foreigners.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> So you're a pureblooded Celt? No trace of foreign blood at all?
> 
> Who said anything about trust? They're an indicator, not the gospel truth.


if they are not the truth , then no use at all , i saw 5 fairies yesterday not 8 or 3 but 5 .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> It's pretty obvious from your statement that equality can only happen when you're among people similar to you plus the way you go on about being "invaded" by foreigners.


not at all < i was asked what a patriot was , and i answered it .


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> if they are not the truth , then no use at all , i saw 5 fairies yesterday not 8 or 3 but 5 .



 Really? So if the true number was that 460000, not 450000 UK citizens are working in the EU, that's no use? C'mon john, you're not that thick are you?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> So you're a pureblooded Celt? No trace of foreign blood at all?
> 
> Who said anything about trust? They're an indicator, not the gospel truth.


we are all of mixed blood on this island .


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> not at all < i was asked what a patriot was , and i answered it .



Yeah, as a racist would. BTW are you a Christian? Cuz if you are you've betrayed your ancestral beliefs, heathens that they were. You do know that the Celts were forcibly and violently converted to Christianity?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Really? So if the true number was that 460000, not 450000 UK citizens are working in the EU, that's no use? C'mon john, you're not that thick are you?


i think the margins a far wider than published .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

as for being (thick) as you say who is clever to define thick ..you ?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i think the margins a far wider than published .



And? Check out the concept of margin of error, might teach you a thing or two.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Yeah, as a racist would. BTW are you a Christian? Cuz if you are you've betrayed your ancestral beliefs, heathens that they were. You do know that the Celts were forcibly and violently converted to Christianity?


they were shown pagan sacrifice was wrong , was that a bad thing ?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> they were shown pagan sacrifice was wrong , was that a bad thing ?



They were invaded, is that a good thing?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> And? Check out the concept of margin of error, might teach you a thing or two.


ime always willing to learn , when i find the teacher interesting


----------



## john cooper (Jan 24, 2012)

TruXta said:


> They were invaded, is that a good thing?


no


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> we are all of mixed blood on this island .


Islands; it's an archipelago.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you can only be equal amongst people who are like you


OK, so now we return to ground I tried to explore earlier.  Please expand on this: what do you mean by "like you"?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> they were shown pagan sacrifice was wrong


Why is it wrong?  By what measure?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> a true patriot as ive explained many times , is a person who maintains long held beliefs created by his ancestors over many years and lives to that code forsaking all others .


Interesting.  So, where is this code set down?  And can you summarise it?  For how long has it been followed, and what changes have been made over the years to it?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Interesting. So, where is this code set down? And can you summarise it? For how long has it been followed, and what changes have been made over the years to it?



It's written inside john's heart, danny, in BLOOD AND TEARS. (and fears)


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> we are all of mixed blood on this island .



We are all of mixed blood on this Earth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> who is wise enough to seperate the two ?



It's not a matter of wisdom, it's a matter of separating two obviously different streams of material - data and authorial content.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes exactly , i do mean the celtic races .



No such thing.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you can only be equal amongst people who are like you


I reckon there's nobody quite like you, john


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> a true patriot as ive explained many times , is a person who maintains long held beliefs created by his ancestors over many years and lives to that code forsaking all others .



Your ancestors used to believe that the earth was flat and it was ok to persecute and burn women because they had knowledge of medecines and herbs. Do you live to that code, forsaking all others?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> they were shown pagan sacrifice was wrong , was that a bad thing ?



Shown by demonstration? No.

Shown via use of murder, rape and coercion? No.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime always willing to learn , when i find the teacher interesting



Teachers are rarely interesting. History teachers even less so.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Teachers are rarely interesting. History teachers even less so.



Stats teachers on the other hand... phwoar..


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 24, 2012)

Random said:


> This post is a bit confused. To clarify, are you saying that "the political setting" plays no role in whether a country can be invaded? For one thing, the amount spent on defence, and the people's willingness to resist, are themselves political and social factors.



Again....the question is, "Can Britain be invaded?". The answer is 'yes'. And you agree.

But you want to try to find reasons I'm wrong though you and I agree that Britain can be invaded. It's not my problem the question isn't "interesting" to you. I didn't start the thread.

Political settings change. Prior to any invasion the political setting was that an invasion wouldn't take place. Countries aren't always at war. Invasion is an act of war. Is it really this difficult a subject for you to comprehend Random?


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Again....the question is, "Can Britain be invaded?". The answer is 'yes'. And you agree.
> 
> But you want to try to find reasons I'm wrong though you and I agree that Britain can be invaded. It's not my problem the question isn't "interesting" to you. I didn't start the thread.


Then you joined in the further discussion, by you saying that Britain is particularly easy to invade. And alsmost asa soon as you said it you've been denying that you're, in fact, having this discussion. Say something that makes an argument or just stop posting on this thread. No one will mind.

The thread starter has already in the early stages of the thread made clear that this dicsussion is about the likelihood, the possible circumstances for an invasion. What are you trying to gain by denying the obvious?


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 24, 2012)

Random said:


> Then you joined in the further discussion, by you saying that Britain is particularly easy to invade. And alsmost asa soon as you said it you've been denying that you're, in fact, having this discussion. Say something that makes an argument or just stop posting on this thread. No one will mind.
> 
> The thread starter has already in the early stages of the thread made clear that this dicsussion is about the likelihood, the possible circumstances for an invasion. What are you trying to gain by denying the obvious?



Britain is "easier" than other countries.  I explained why.

That, however, isn't discussing the probability of an invasion.


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Britain is "easier" than other countries. I explained why.


And I've argued why your reasons only make it "easy" for a superpower like the USA, and maybe one or two others. If you've responded to this point I've missed it. Mostly you've been working hard to say why you've said enough and don't need to respond. Yet here you are, day after day...


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 24, 2012)

Random said:


> And I've argued why your reasons only make it "easy" for a superpower like the USA, and maybe one or two others. If you've responded to this point I've missed it. Mostly you've been working hard to say why you've said enough and don't need to respond. Yet here you are, day after day...



Go back and check - you'll find you're actually responding to me...day after day.

Yes it would be easier for the USA to invade Britain as opposed to Uzbekistan, for instance.  I've explained why.

It DOESN'T MATTER IN THE LEAST that it "only" makes it easier for the countries capable.  It is still true.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2012)

My best thread ever .


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> My best thread ever .


Well, you gave us a fascinating new character for sure


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Yes it would be easier for the USA to invade Britain as opposed to Uzbekistan, for instance. I've explained why.


Now I get it, you just want to talk about the USA, because that's where you're from, right?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> I don't think we could resist for very long. We're not like the Chechens or the Pashtuns, we're soft. Also, there's a very extensive surveillance infrastructure already in place which they would try to take over from the outset.


The surveillance structure didn't stop last year's riots. It would certainly dampen down the official opposition, but imagine if rioting kids were met by US marines? Or if someone at a local derby threw a bottle at a soldier? All it takes is one little massacre and suddenly almost every member of the civilian population is a potential terrorist.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Islands; it's an archipelago.


quite correct as usual .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, so now we return to ground I tried to explore earlier. Please expand on this: what do you mean by "like you"?


but i have explained the point many times ? like me an english patriot loyal to the crown and all it stands for , is that clear enough for you ?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

What about the Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Irish, John?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Why is it wrong? By what measure?


you ask is pagan sacrifice wrong , my all measure of human conscienceness yes it is .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Interesting. So, where is this code set down? And can you summarise it? For how long has it been followed, and what changes have been made over the years to it?


its a moral code set out by your parents and passed down the generations as a code to live by , its called the ten commandments .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

c


Lock&Light said:


> We are all of mixed blood on this Earth.


correct .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No such thing.


ime glad you said that .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Your ancestors used to believe that the earth was flat and it was ok to persecute and burn women because they had knowledge of medecines and herbs. Do you live to that code, forsaking all others?


yes but we all learn over time do we not and desist in barbaric acts .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Teachers are rarely interesting. History teachers even less so.


i disagree ive had many splendid teachers who have broadened my horizons .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> but i have explained the point many times ? like me an english patriot loyal to the crown and all it stands for , is that clear enough for you ?


No, it isn't clear enough.  You said: "you can only be equal amongst people who are like you".  So, you're saying that you, John Cooper, can only be equal amongst other English patriots loyal to the crown and all it stands for?

So, amongst whom can I be equal?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> And I've argued why your reasons only make it "easy" for a superpower like the USA, and maybe one or two others. If you've responded to this point I've missed it. Mostly you've been working hard to say why you've said enough and don't need to respond. Yet here you are, day after day...


we have already been invaded look around am i the only one who realises this fact ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> The surveillance structure didn't stop last year's riots. It would certainly dampen down the official opposition, but imagine if rioting kids were met by US marines? Or if someone at a local derby threw a bottle at a soldier? All it takes is one little massacre and suddenly almost every member of the civilian population is a potential terrorist.


the riots were criminal acts carried out by criminals , lets not pussy foot there was no political agenda just greed .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> No, it isn't clear enough. You said: "you can only be equal amongst people who are like you". So, you're saying that you, John Cooper, can only be equal amongst other English patriots loyal to the crown and all it stands for?
> 
> So, amongst whom can I be equal?


other australians i guess .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> What about the Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Irish, John?


dont start me on our nieghbours again , you know my viewpoint , rebuild hadrians wall dig out offas ditch and knock down the menia bridge


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you ask is pagan sacrifice wrong , my all measure of human conscienceness yes it is .


By your measure of human conscience maybe, but not by all measure of human conscience.  Pagans, for example, presumably are/were quite at ease with the notion, morally.

Lots of religions practised sacrifice.  Jesus, for example, participated in the Feast of the Tabernacle, and went to the Temple during the Passover (which ceremony specifically involved sacrifice) every year with his parents (Luke 2:41), once memorably when he was 12, and three times during his ministry.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> other australians i guess .


I've already told you I'm not Australian.  I don't know where you got that idea.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> Now I get it, you just want to talk about the USA, because that's where you're from, right?


usa are our blood brothers kindred spirits and keepers of world order , why would they invade ?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> dont start me on our nieghbours again , you know my viewpoint , rebuild hadrians wall dig out offas ditch and knock down the menia bridge



They were there before you English, so by your own reasoning you're in the wrong. And Hadrian's wall??? Really? Think, john, who built Hadrian's wall?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes but we all learn over time do we not and desist in barbaric acts .


OK, so your code has not be passed down intact since the dawn of time, but has changed over the years?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> we have already been invaded look around am i the only one who realises this fact ?


Is this about Normans?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I've already told you I'm not Australian. I don't know where you got that idea.


assuming then you are not , you belong in the british society


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, so your code has not be passed down intact since the dawn of time, but has changed over the years?


it has amongst me and the people i associate with .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Is this about Normans?


not about french history no , its about reality of what is happening today.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I've already told you I'm not Australian. I don't know where you got that idea.


Because he's on a wind-up danny


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> assuming then you are not , you belong in the british society


You don't need to assume anything, I've told you several times I'm not Australian.

So, you are equal amongst English patriots loyal to the crown and all it stands for, but I'm equal amongst all British citizens?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> Because he's on a wind-up danny


Indeed.  Butch was right, he's a fake on a troll.  Very probably a banned returner.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> By your measure of human conscience maybe, but not by all measure of human conscience. Pagans, for example, presumably are/were quite at ease with the notion, morally.
> 
> Lots of religions practised sacrifice. Jesus, for example, participated in the Feast of the Tabernacle, and went to the Temple during the Passover (which ceremony specifically involved sacrifice) every year with his parents (Luke 2:41), once memorably when he was 12, and three times during his ministry.


historical fact for sure , but let us concentrate on current events .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> not about french history no , its about reality of what is happening today.


We're being invade now?  OK, so once more, can you define in which sense you are using the word "invaded"?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You don't need to assume anything, I've told you several times I'm not Australian.
> 
> So, you are equal amongst English patriots loyal to the crown and all it stands for, but I'm equal amongst all British citizens?


it depends on your education and which slot in life you were placed as you are very vague on this , i dont know what that is ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed. Butch was right, he's a fake on a troll. Very probably a banned returner.


can you please explain .( a troll ) is this an insult of some kind ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> historical fact for sure , but let us concentrate on current events .


I'm keen to establish why you think that pagan sacrifice is wrong by all conscience.  What fundamental tenet makes it wrong?  Where can this be found?  We have established that Jesus himself was in breech of it on several occasions.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> can you please explain .( a troll ) is this an insult of some kind ?


Yes, I'll explain.  It means you're on a wind up, like Random said.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> We're being invade now? OK, so once more, can you define in which sense you are using the word "invaded"?


once again alien cultures imposing themselves onto the established order of things , hence changing a way of life long established .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> it depends on your education and which slot in life you were placed as you are very vague on this , i dont know what that is ?


OK, I'm Scottish, I went to a state comp, my Dad was a forestry worker and a taxi driver amongst other things, and I currently earn less than the average wage.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> once again alien cultures imposing themselves onto the established order of things , hence changing a way of life long established .



Back to Victorian times then? Have a read of history john, cultures, YES even what you call English culture, isn't the same now as it was 100 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 25 years ago. That's what cultures do - change.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, I'll explain. It means you're on a wind up, like Random said.


not at all ime explaining my position and thoughts on britain being invaded , is that not the purpose of the thread , because you dont agree with me dont resort to insults .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> once again alien cultures imposing themselves onto the established order of things , hence changing a way of life long established .


OK, so which alien cultures?  And, you've just said that the code you live by being subject to change is a good thing ("we all learn over time do we not and desist in barbaric acts").


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, I'm Scottish, I went to a state comp, my Dad was a forestry worker and a taxi driver amongst other things, and I currently earn less than the average wage.


scottish now that explains your over reaction to many things ive sais , its much clearer now why you are anti monarchist


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> not at all ime explaining my position and thoughts on britain being invaded , is that not the purpose of the thread , because you dont agree with me dont resort to insults .


It was in response to you pretending to think I'm Australian, for no good reason, even after I've told you I'm not.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> scottish now that explains your over reaction to many things ive sais


Where have I over reacted?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Back to Victorian times then? Have a read of history john, cultures, YES even what you call English culture, isn't the same now as it was 100 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 25 years ago. That's what cultures do - change.


progressive change i accept ...it being forced by outside influence i dont accept .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Where have I over reacted?


at times the tone of your writings have been not only insulting but hysterical .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> progressive change i accept ...it being forced by outside influence i dont accept .


OK, so examples, please, of outside influence forcing changes you dislike.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

This is going nowhere, idiots can't be reasoned with. danny, I'll leave this to you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> at times the tone of your writings have been not only insulting but hysterical .


Nope, you are again confusing me with someone else.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

as a scot looking for independence you no longer have any say in english culture , just like the scots mps will shortly find out .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 25, 2012)

TruXta said:


> This is going nowhere, idiots can't be reasoned with. danny, I'll leave this to you.


insults again i am disappointed , expressing your beliefs would be far more entertaining , give it a whirl .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> as a scot looking for independence you no longer have any say in english culture , just like the scots mps will shortly find out .


I'm interested in notions of culture, though.  Am I debarred from debating culture?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> insults again i am disappointed , expressing your beliefs would be far more entertaining , give it a whirl .



It's not an insult, it's a statement of fact. You don't seem in possession of basic reading comprehension, logic or reasoning. Hence you're an idiot. Either that or you're on a wind-up. Either way I have better things to waste my time on. Good day.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> expressing your beliefs would be far more entertaining , give it a whirl .


So, let's see where we get with the direction this was going.

One can only be equal amongst others like oneself, according to you. You said I can be equal amongst other British people, but you said own cohort is "English patriots loyal to the crown and all it stands for". That interests me, since you don't include all British people in that group. How do we select which group we are capable of being equal amongst?

You also said that progressive change to your code is good. But that conflicts with an earlier idea you stated, which was that your code had been unchanging for centuries.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 25, 2012)

You gone, John?

It's a pity, because I think we're getting to the core of your views on culture.  If my post above (585) is an accurate précis, then the conflict - between wanting to preserve authentic tradition, but also embrace progressive change - is one shared by many people.  It is one shared by most Multiculturalists, as is the idea you expressed of equality amongst others like oneself.  Both notions are at the core of identity politics.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> The surveillance structure didn't stop last year's riots. It would certainly dampen down the official opposition, but imagine if rioting kids were met by US marines? Or if someone at a local derby threw a bottle at a soldier? All it takes is one little massacre and suddenly almost every member of the civilian population is a potential terrorist.



If the US were smart, they'd exploit existing class divisions. Win over the unemployed and low-paid workers with promises to overthrow the rule of the Oxbridge elite and give the little guy a chance. All kids love American culture too, so it wouldn't be hard to organise them into an Obama Youth wearing _USA, Fuck Yeah!_ t-shirts. They'd be good for snitching purposes and for intimidating opponents to US rule.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> it has amongst me and the people i associate with .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> other australians i guess .



That'd only work if Danny were an Aussie,  you muppet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2012)

john cooper said:


> it has amongst me and the people i associate with .



You mean inbreds and other congenital idiots?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

Spud Murfy said:


> If the US were smart, they'd exploit existing class divisions. Win over the unemployed and low-paid workers with promises to overthrow the rule of the Oxbridge elite and give the little guy a chance. All kids love American culture too, so it wouldn't be hard to organise them into an Obama Youth wearing _USA, Fuck Yeah!_ t-shirts. They'd be good for snitching purposes and for intimidating opponents to US rule.


Surely at the start they'd be all about protecting the existing privilaged elite, who they have long-standing links to? Maybe under pressure from a resistance they'd switch and start backing the pro-USA mobs, throwing the aristos and politicians into resistance. This kind of flip-flop was often done in colonial times. Look at the way France originally favoured the Tutsis, etc etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2012)

Why would the US ever need to invade. They view as little more than a favoured client state with knowledge and influence of/in the european sphere anyway.

Now the PRC, they could have a square go. If the yanks left us high and dry the PRC could most definetly have a square go. We'd all be speaking mandarin by teatime. Except me because I would be living in the hills with my dog and eating roots and berries while dreaming of Arthurs return at Englands greatest hour of need. It was promised by legend ffs.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Why would the US ever need to invade. They view as little more than a favoured client state with knowledge and influence of/in the european sphere anyway.


 Yes, that's been my point from the start. But let's face it, they're probably the only power with the strength to actually invade. Apart from an EU on steroids.


DotCommunist said:


> Now the PRC, they could have a square go. If the yanks left us high and dry the PRC could most definetly have a square go.


 Why would they want to, though? Can't see any tactical or strategic goals the PRC would win by a British invasion. Also it would take bloody ages for the transports to get here from China, and they'd be cruise missiled all the way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2012)

I've no idea why they would, just saying that they probably could if our cousins over the water left us out in the sun. 'First world' countries don't really do direct warfare these days do they though? resource wars and economic wars within and over spheres of influence ennit. By proxy.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 25, 2012)

Random said:


> Surely at the start they'd be all about protecting the existing privilaged elite, who they have long-standing links to? Maybe under pressure from a resistance they'd switch and start backing the pro-USA mobs, throwing the aristos and politicians into resistance. This kind of flip-flop was often done in colonial times. Look at the way France originally favoured the Tutsis, etc etc



I reckon they might be more like the Nazis in Poland and aim to 'neutralise' all the aristos and Oxbridge people from the start.

Then they could begin teaching a more convenient version of history to the young. By 2050, the average Key Stage 4 pupil will believe that Britain was originally settled from the US and that the evil robot Perkin Warbeck led a rebellion by secretly building an army of Angloids. Warbeck and the Angloids tried to trick all the Celts and other Real American People in Britain into thinking that they were Angloids too. This made Jesus angry and in 2015 he vowed that once more Americans would rule Britain.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean inbreds and other congenital idiots?


i think you are far more inteligent than this , having to hurl insults if we disagree then so be it .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 26, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You gone, John?
> 
> It's a pity, because I think we're getting to the core of your views on culture. If my post above (585) is an accurate précis, then the conflict - between wanting to preserve authentic tradition, but also embrace progressive change - is one shared by many people. It is one shared by most Multiculturalists, as is the idea you expressed of equality amongst others like oneself. Both notions are at the core of identity politics.


we have disagreed on many things but i do admire the way you express yourself without using bad language even though i have tried to provoke you for that you have gained my respect.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2012)

Tried to provoke me?  Tut tut, naughty boy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i think you are far more inteligent than this , having to hurl insults if we disagree then so be it .



You've made lots of noises about preservation of culture and identity.
Intelligence and knowledge tell us that if you preserve your genetic identity for too long, you reinforce recessive traits until they become dominant. That can mean stuff like hair or eye colour, it can also mean reinforcing genetic impairments. The more orthodox of my own culture are easy proof of this - Orthodox Jews are well-acquainted with Tay-Sachs syndrome, which is a direct result of in-marriage. Just about every Orthodox community has cases, in some communities the disorder is prevalent among the young. It's also untreatable.

Just like with culture, if the genetics of a people doesn't continually evolve through hybridity alongside natural mutation, all sorts of bad shit happens. The peoples of 19th-century Tristan da Cunha, and some of the cannibal societies of Papua New Guinea can testify to that.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 26, 2012)

Random said:


> Yes, that's been my point from the start. But let's face it, they're probably the only power with the strength to actually invade. Apart from an EU on steroids.



And that's why you've been off topic the whole thread.  The question is "can" Britain be invaded - not will it be invaded.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Why would the US ever need to invade.



Because after the Beatles British imports nosedived.  You send the worst people over here - except Gordon Ramsey who isn't nearly as bad as he's made out to be.

Anyway, those exports are sent all over the English speaking world.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Because after the Beatles British imports nosedived. *You send the worst people over here* - except Gordon Ramsey who isn't nearly as bad as he's made out to be.
> 
> Anyway, those exports are sent all over the English speaking world.



A habit of centuries is hard to break


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> A habit of centuries is hard to break



Where's your self esteem?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 26, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> Where's your self esteem?



Probably much better after getting rid of the cunts.


----------



## dilute micro (Jan 26, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Probably much better after getting rid of the cunts.



urban75 is UK based


----------



## TruXta (Jan 26, 2012)

What's that got to do with anything? Dotsy said the trash gets exported over to you lot, leaving us (well, them British) feeling better about themselves.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've made lots of noises about preservation of culture and identity.
> Intelligence and knowledge tell us that if you preserve your genetic identity for too long, you reinforce recessive traits until they become dominant. That can mean stuff like hair or eye colour, it can also mean reinforcing genetic impairments. The more orthodox of my own culture are easy proof of this - Orthodox Jews are well-acquainted with Tay-Sachs syndrome, which is a direct result of in-marriage. Just about every Orthodox community has cases, in some communities the disorder is prevalent among the young. It's also untreatable.
> 
> Just like with culture, if the genetics of a people doesn't continually evolve through hybridity alongside natural mutation, all sorts of bad shit happens. The peoples of 19th-century Tristan da Cunha, and some of the cannibal societies of Papua New Guinea can testify to that.


yes it makes sense , but its really quite deep this , i was explaining myself in really  very simple terms
so that anyone could understand my point regarding england and how we have already been invaded , i thought i was pretty clear on this subject obviously not .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

dilute micro said:


> And that's why you've been off topic the whole thread. The question is "can" Britain be invaded - not will it be invaded.


the questions irrelevent as we have already been invaded , if not completly yet , then the vangard is here preparing the ground , should we sit back and kiss our way off life goodbye or voice our opposition to this ? ime voicing my opposition others might see the situation completly differently .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Tried to provoke me? Tut tut, naughty boy.


not in a malicious way , liken it to prising open a crab looking for the juicy bits .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the questions irrelevent as we have already been invaded , if not completly yet , then the vangard is here preparing the ground , should we sit back and kiss our way off life goodbye or voice our opposition to this ? ime voicing my opposition others might see the situation completly differently .


By whom?  What way of life are we kissing goodbye?  Which aspects of it are in danger?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes it makes sense , but its really quite deep this , i was explaining myself in really very simple terms
> so that anyone could understand my point regarding england and how we have already been invaded , i thought i was pretty clear on this subject obviously not .



England hasn't been successfully invaded for almost a thousand years. Calling settlement "invasion" doesn't make settlement "invasion".


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the questions irrelevent as we have already been invaded , if not completly yet , then the vangard is here preparing the ground , should we sit back and kiss our way off life goodbye or voice our opposition to this ? ime voicing my opposition others might see the situation completly differently .



Who's invaded where? What vanguard, how are they preparing the ground? What are you kissing goodbye, exactly?

Are you in favour of repatriation?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Who's invaded where? What vanguard, how are they preparing the ground? What are you kissing goodbye, exactly?
> 
> Are you in favour of repatriation?


not in favour of repatriation , but would like to stop the flood .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> By whom? What way of life are we kissing goodbye? Which aspects of it are in danger?


foriegn nationals from other countries with thier own ways of living , by sheer numbers will change the way of life of the indiginous population , its only a matter of time ,would it be changed for the better ? i doubt it .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> England hasn't been successfully invaded for almost a thousand years. Calling settlement "invasion" doesn't make settlement "invasion".


i do call it invasion when its a large number involved .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Who's invaded where? What vanguard, how are they preparing the ground? What are you kissing goodbye, exactly?
> 
> Are you in favour of repatriation?


obviously ime aiming my comments at british people .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i do call it invasion when its a large number involved .



Then you're misusing the word, mate, especially when most people who come here to work don't settle, and have sod-all recourse to public resources (if they're from EU member-states, then they have to pay tax and NI for a year solid before they have even limited grounds for a claim). Plus, if they want to become permanent citizens they have to meet the citizenship criteria *and* pass the tests.

None of that consitutes anything that harms culture or even affects it in anything more than a very ordinary way that's unavoidable in a "globalised" environment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> foriegn nationals from other countries with thier own ways of living , by sheer numbers will change the way of life of the indiginous population , its only a matter of time ,would it be changed for the better ? i doubt it .



There is no "indigenous population", and no specific "way of life" any older than a couple of hundred years (by which time we'd already been open to influence by other cultures for thousands of years).
Do you not bother to think any of this through, John?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> foriegn nationals from other countries with thier own ways of living , by sheer numbers will change the way of life of the indiginous population , its only a matter of time ,would it be changed for the better ? i doubt it .


OK, so you're reusing the word "invasion" and making it mean immigration.  You presumably use this cacophemism because you fear the effects of immigration.  It's these perceived effects I'm keen to explore.

So, this "way of life of the indigenous population"?  What exactly is it, and how long does it go back unchanged?  Can you outline it for me?

Is English Culture any more, in other words, than "what English people do"?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> obviously ime aiming my comments at british people .


Oh, I see. No Irish Need Reply


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> foriegn nationals from other countries with thier own ways of living , by sheer numbers will change the way of life of the indiginous population , its only a matter of time ,would it be changed for the better ? i doubt it .



Yeah but just think; you could learn a whole new language to mangle, JC.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 28, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh, I see. No Irish Need Reply


of coarse enyone can have a viewpoint even the irish .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> of coarse enyone can have a viewpoint even the irish .


it would be nice if someone so proud to be english as you could at least learn to spell words like 'course' and 'anyone'. after all, if the english aren't up for looking after their own language the americans will end up doing it for us with results that i shudder to imagine.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 28, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, so you're reusing the word "invasion" and making it mean immigration. You presumably use this cacophemism because you fear the effects of immigration. It's these perceived effects I'm keen to explore.
> 
> So, this "way of life of the indigenous population"? What exactly is it, and how long does it go back unchanged? Can you outline it for me?
> 
> Is English Culture any more, in other words, than "what English people do"?


invasion no invaded yes , do i fear the effects of being flooded by immigration yes ,indiginous population are the people ive always lived among depends which part of the island you live on ,goes back to when i was born , is that any clearer ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> invasion no invaded yes , do i fear the effects of being flooded by immigration yes ,indiginous population are the people ive always lived among depends which part of the island you live on ,goes back to when i was born , is that any clearer ?


no


----------



## john cooper (Jan 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be nice if someone so proud to be english as you could at least learn to spell words like 'course' and 'anyone'. after all, if the english aren't up for looking after their own language the americans will end up doing it for us with results that i shudder to imagine.


a slip of the finger lucky it wasnt two fingers


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> a slip of the finger lucky it wasnt two fingers


that's alright. let's hope it's two fingers next time you're using something sharp.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 28, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Yeah but just think; you could learn a whole new language to mangle, JC.


no other language is a fun to use or a abuse depends how i feel in the moment


----------



## john cooper (Jan 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> that's alright. let's hope it's two fingers next time you're using something sharp.


be still my bleeding heart , thats a famous english saying did you know that ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> invasion no invaded yes , do i fear the effects of being flooded by immigration yes ,indiginous population are the people ive always lived among depends which part of the island you live on ,goes back to when i was born , is that any clearer ?


No.  That wasn't what I asked.  I'm not asking who the indigenous population are, or where they are.  I'm asking what you think their way of life consists of.  What is it that you fear is under threat of change?  Can you give me examples?

For instance, you might think that an important part of the English way of life is watching and playing cricket.  You may further feel this is threatened.  If so, how?

That's the sort of thing I'm after.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 28, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> No. That wasn't what I asked. I'm not asking who the indigenous population are, or where they are. I'm asking what you think their way of life consists of. What is it that you fear is under threat of change? Can you give me examples?
> 
> For instance, you might think that an important part of the English way of life is watching and playing cricket. You may further feel this is threatened. If so, how?
> 
> That's the sort of thing I'm after.


cricket that question wasnt cricket but hey ho here we go , public houses are finished here , meeting places that they were , religion is being now graded in favour of homosexuality , hence changing peoples outlook , crime is rife caused by mainly foriegn immigrants , stats show 80% of criminals are black or of foriegn identity this causes ripples in the community thus changing the cohesion of the norm.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> cricket that question wasnt cricket but hey ho here we go , public houses are finished here , meeting places that they were , religion is being now graded in favour of homosexuality , hence changing peoples outlook , crime is rife caused by mainly foriegn immigrants , stats show 80% of criminals are black or of foriegn identity this causes ripples in the community thus changing the cohesion of the norm.


OK, so which of these is due to immigration?

1. *Public houses* - pubs aren't "finished" in the UK.  There have been closures, but there are still many pubs. Are you suggesting immigration has caused these closures?  How?

2. "*religion is being now graded in favour of homosexuality*" - I'm not sure what that sentence means, but I'm sensing you disapprove of homosexuality.  Is that correct?  Two things: first of all, I'd say that improving attitudes towards homosexuality was one of those progressive changes we discussed earlier in the thread; secondly, how exactly has immigration cause improved attitudes towards homosexuality?

3. "*crime is rife caused by mainly foreign immigrant*s" - nonsense.  Crime has always been a fact of life in the UK.  Where is the evidence that it is "caused mainly by foreign immigrants"?

4.  "*stats show 80% of criminals are black or of foreign identity*" - So colour comes into it, does it?  Black people can't be British?  Secondly, evidence, please, that "80% of criminals are black or of foreign identity".


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> cricket that question wasnt cricket but hey ho here we go , public houses are finished here , meeting places that they were , religion is being now graded in favour of homosexuality , hence changing peoples outlook , crime is rife caused by mainly foriegn immigrants , stats show 80% of criminals are black or of foriegn identity this causes ripples in the community thus changing the cohesion of the norm.



Wow. I mean, woooow. So many lies wrapped up in racism and homophobia. You are BNP and I claim my £5.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> invasion no invaded yes , do i fear the effects of being flooded by immigration yes ,indiginous population are the people ive always lived among depends which part of the island you live on ,goes back to when i was born , is that any clearer ?



So, not indigenous at all, then, just contemporary to you, and born where you were.
Get a grip eh, John.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> be still my bleeding heart , thats a famous english saying did you know that ?



No it isn't. The correct quote is "be still, my *beating* heart", from Mountfort's "Zelmane", although it's often attributed to Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet".


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 28, 2012)

John, could you explain your concerns about homosexuality and why you feel it's not the "norm"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

john cooper said:


> cricket that question wasnt cricket but hey ho here we go , public houses are finished here , meeting places that they were , religion is being now graded in favour of homosexuality , hence changing peoples outlook , crime is rife caused by mainly foriegn immigrants , stats show 80% of criminals are black or of foriegn identity this causes ripples in the community thus changing the cohesion of the norm.



There are still tens of thousands of pubs; homosexuality has been around *everywhere* since the first gendered critter bummed another similarly-gendered critter, and has fuck all to do with religion or culture; crime is *not* mainly caused by foreign immigrants, and there are no credible statistics to support such a claim, unless you read MigrationWatch's hack-jobs on ONS stats; and there are no credible statistics showing that "80%" of crims are "black or of foriegn [sic] identity".

How about not posting up bollocks, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> John, could you explain your concerns about homosexuality and why you feel it's not the "norm"?



He wanks off to a picture of Jeebus baring his Sacred Heart, and secretly *knows* it's wrong to do so because it feels *so good!!!*


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He wanks off to a picture of Jeebus baring his Sacred Heart, and secretly *knows* it's wrong to do so because it feels *so good!!!*


 Stop! I just laughed tea out my nose! Sadly, people like John exist and no amount of dialogue or enlightenment will change their mind. Still, you can try - it's good that he hasn't been hounded off yet.

It's classic stuff, mind. I'm awaiting the inevitable foreigners spread disease line...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2012)

John doesn't exist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> John doesn't exist.



Ern, Swarthy or flimsier?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> John doesn't exist.



He's only dancing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> England hasn't been successfully invaded for almost a thousand years. Calling settlement "invasion" doesn't make settlement "invasion".


henry vii; william iii


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 28, 2012)

I'd forgotten about john. There was another one too wasn't there?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, so which of these is due to immigration?
> 
> 1. *Public houses* - pubs aren't "finished" in the UK. There have been closures, but there are still many pubs. Are you suggesting immigration has caused these closures? How?
> 
> ...



the facts speak for themselves as your a great one for facts deal with it .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> henry vii; william iii


i disagree over settlement is the same as invasion they are one of the same/


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i disagree over settlement is the same as invasion they are one of the same/


i don't give a flying fuck whether you agree or disagree as your ignorance is obvious. and it's not just ignorance over historical things, but also about things you make out are close to your heart.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Wow. I mean, woooow. So many lies wrapped up in racism and homophobia. You are BNP and I claim my £5.


i say it as i see it and you say its racist and homophobic , thats laughable , look at the propaganda in the media regarding homosexuality when did it become the norm ? because has , look at the soaps so many gay couples is it brainwashing the public into accepting it as normal .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't give a flying fuck whether you agree or disagree as your ignorance is obvious. and it's not just ignorance over historical things, but also about things you make out are close to your heart.


its ignorant now to express ones views , you say its ignorant because you dont understand or because you disagree ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, not indigenous at all, then, just contemporary to you, and born where you were.
> Get a grip eh, John.


define your concept of indiginous ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> John, could you explain your concerns about homosexuality and why you feel it's not the "norm"?


well its the norm to a homosexual , to me as a hetrosexual man its abnormal , if that hurts tough.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There are still tens of thousands of pubs; homosexuality has been around *everywhere* since the first gendered critter bummed another similarly-gendered critter, and has fuck all to do with religion or culture; crime is *not* mainly caused by foreign immigrants, and there are no credible statistics to support such a claim, unless you read MigrationWatch's hack-jobs on ONS stats; and there are no credible statistics showing that "80%" of crims are "black or of foriegn [sic] identity".
> 
> How about not posting up bollocks, eh?


i was replying to a question


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its ignorant now to express ones views , you say its ignorant because you dont understand or because you disagree ?


it's ignorant because you don't know what the fuck you're on about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i was replying to a question


for your own sake, in future don't.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> John doesn't exist.


i exist alright and ime entitled to my views , as ime not on my own with these views ime happy .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's ignorant because you don't know what the fuck you're on about.


do you live in a lighthouse because your so out of touch with reality you must do .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

elaborate ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> do you live in a lighthouse because your so out of touch with reality you must do .


a) settlement is not the same as invasion;

b) the simple fact of the matter is that william of orange *invaded* the country, albeit with the support of part of the population. but then hengist and horsa had the support of part of the population when they invaded too.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the facts speak for themselves as your a great one for facts deal with it .


Then let us have the facts for your four major assertions.

1. Pubs are closing because of immigration.
2. Immigrants are increasing gayness.  (Not sure what your sentence meant: please advise).
3. a) crime is rife.
3. b) that is caused by foreign immigrants
4. 80% of criminals are black or of foreign identity.

Please back up these assertions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> henry vii; william iii



Pedantic bastard!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pedantic bastard!


I think that was his tagline.  But it seemed redundant, so he changed it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the facts speak for themselves as your a great one for facts deal with it .



No, they don't. Facts *never* "speak for themselves", there's always some twat trying to manipulate what they represent. Now, how about a few fewer cliches and few more bits of hard evidence, John?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> define your concept of indiginous ?



Indigenous - native to. In all accepted uses of the word, that means, applied to the UK, that the nearest thing to indigenes we had in the UK were the Picts, because the Celts? Johnny-Come-Latelies from the Indian sub-continent.

I know that some of the nice people within the "new right" like to argue that "indigenous" should actually mean "anyone who's been here a couple of thousand years", but have you ever wondered *why* they argue that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i say it as i see it and you say its racist and homophobic , thats laughable , look at the propaganda in the media regarding homosexuality when did it become the norm ? because has , look at the soaps so many gay couples is it brainwashing the public into accepting it as normal .



You can obviously read, so why not read some history. Why exactly do you think that there have been laws against homosexuality for so long? Could it be that, rather than homosexuality being a singularly vile offence, the *prevalence* of homosexuality is what turns power structures against it - the thought that a significant percentage of *any* population with a shared preference might influence those power structures unless you suppress them?
It's been the "norm" forever. Don't mistake your prejudices for "the norm" - they're not, they're simply expressions of ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i exist alright and ime entitled to my views , as ime not on my own with these views ime happy .



Yeah, you keep telling us about how people share your views. Of course, there are plenty of people who mouth off similar stuff, and like you, most of them can't actually support the stuff they spout at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i was replying to a question



Yes, with a load of unsubstantiated shite.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> a) settlement is not the same as invasion;
> 
> b) the simple fact of the matter is that william of orange *invaded* the country, albeit with the support of part of the population. but then hengist and horsa had the support of part of the population when they invaded too.


what has william of orange got to do with anything you have lost me there ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Then let us have the facts for your four major assertions.
> 
> 1. Pubs are closing because of immigration.
> 2. Immigrants are increasing gayness. (Not sure what your sentence meant: please advise).
> ...


i didnt say crime was caused by immigration i actually said 80% of prisoners were foriegn ,pubs closing because of immigration not correct , i didnt say that at all i didnt give a reason ,crime is rife yes statistics back that up ,no room in prisons self explantary ide say .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There are still tens of thousands of pubs; homosexuality has been around *everywhere* since the first gendered critter bummed another similarly-gendered critter, and has fuck all to do with religion or culture; crime is *not* mainly caused by foreign immigrants, and there are no credible statistics to support such a claim, unless you read MigrationWatch's hack-jobs on ONS stats; and there are no credible statistics showing that "80%" of crims are "black or of foriegn [sic] identity".
> 
> How about not posting up bollocks, eh?


yes homosexualty has always been around but its never before been pushed through the media as normal , no wonder male sperm is in decline with all the male makeup and hair gels and skirts for men ..jesus there hasnt been a man born in the last 20 years and ime not surprised .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, with a load of unsubstantiated shite.


you dont agree with my view point thats obvious but a least you know it , i havnt got a clue what yours is .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes homosexualty has always been around but its never before been pushed through the media as normal , no wonder male sperm is in decline with all the male makeup and hair gels and skirts for men ..jesus there hasnt been a man born in the last 20 years and ime not surprised .



More shite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you dont agree with my view point thats obvious but a least you know it , i havnt got a clue what yours is .



My views are evident from my posts. Not my problem if you can't be arsed to work them out.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes homosexualty has always been around but its never before been pushed through the media as normal , no wonder male sperm is in decline with all the male makeup and hair gels and skirts for men ..jesus there hasnt been a man born in the last 20 years and ime not surprised .



This was a key point in the pre-massacre manifesto of that Norwegian dickhead from last summer. I mean the rubbish about men having to wear moisturiser, etc. (pro-tip: if you don't want to wear male grooming products, _don't wear them_).


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i didnt say crime was caused by immigration


You said: ""crime is rife caused by mainly foreign immigrants". Are you going back on that now? Fair enough.



> i actually said 80% of prisoners were foriegn


You haven't yet provided a source for that. However, there's actually a big difference between that and what you actually said which was that "80% of _criminals_ are black or of foreign identity". Criminals is a wider category than prisoners, including - as it does - those engaged in criminal activity but not in prison.


> pubs closing because of immigration not correct , i didnt say that at all i didnt give a reason


OK, so what was that to do with, then? Pubs are closing. It isn't as if pubs are in danger of no longer existing.

Although it does open up the question of whether you think attending pubs is a _necessary_ part of Englishness or Britishness. In order to be following the British Way of Life, authentic British Culture, does one have to be a pub-goer? I can count on one hand the number of times I've been to a pub in the last 15 years.



> crime is rife yes statistics back that up ,no room in prisons self explantary ide say .


Again, you are confusing crime with prison sentences.  "No room in prisons" may well be self explanatory, but it doesn't tell us about crime levels, it tells us about incarceration policy.

However, if there are statistics to back up crime being rife, you'll be able to point us to them. You talk of a way of life changing, so presumably there was a time when crime wasn't, in your opinion, rife. When was that 30 years ago? 40? 100? Please show us the statistics.


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i didnt say crime was caused by immigration i actually said 80% of prisoners were foriegn ,pubs closing because of immigration not correct , i didnt say that at all i didnt give a reason ,crime is rife yes statistics back that up ,no room in prisons self explantary ide say .



Fron the Ministry of Justice:

On 30 June 2010, the total prison population in England and Wales was 85,002. Of these, 21,878 prisoners (just under 26%) were from BME groups. This proportion is consistent with that recorded from 2006 to 2009 (when it was between 26%–27%).
Ok so the stats are 18 months old but I can't imagine they've changed much. Under 26% is a bit different from the 80% you suggest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

felixthecat said:


> Fron the Ministry of Justice:
> 
> On 30 June 2010, the total prison population in England and Wales was 85,002. Of these, 21,878 prisoners (just under 26%) were from BME groups. This proportion is consistent with that recorded from 2006 to 2009 (when it was between 26%–27%).
> Ok so the stats are 18 months old but I can't imagine they've changed much. Under 26% is a bit different from the 80% you suggest.



He probably reckons the other 54% are passing as white and/or British.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2012)

felixthecat said:


> Fron the Ministry of Justice:
> 
> On 30 June 2010, the total prison population in England and Wales was 85,002. Of these, 21,878 prisoners (just under 26%) were from BME groups.



And how many were _foreign_?
I can answer that for John. According to HM Prison Service, the percentage of foreign nationals "now represents over 14% of the total prison population in England and Wales".

So, not 80%.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> And how many were _foreign_?
> I can answer that for John. According to HM Prison Service, the percentage of foreign nationals "now represents over 14% of the total prison population in England and Wales".
> 
> So, not 80%.


EVIDENCE OF THE ISLAMIFICATION OF OUR JAILS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> what has william of orange got to do with anything you have lost me there ?


I rather thought I might.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you dont agree with my view point thats obvious but a least you know it , i havnt got a clue


*corrected for you*


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> This was a key point in the pre-massacre manifesto of that Norwegian dickhead from last summer. I mean the rubbish about men having to wear moisturiser, etc. (pro-tip: if you don't want to wear male grooming products, _don't wear them_).


to liken me with that maniac , pure stupidity ! who are you anyway ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You said: ""crime is rife caused by mainly foreign immigrants". Are you going back on that now? Fair enough.
> 
> You haven't yet provided a source for that. However, there's actually a big difference between that and what you actually said which was that "80% of _criminals_ are black or of foreign identity". Criminals is a wider category than prisoners, including - as it does - those engaged in criminal activity but not in prison.
> OK, so what was that to do with, then? Pubs are closing. It isn't as if pubs are in danger of no longer existing.
> ...



well if 80% of inmates are foriegn , hello ! dosnt take brain of britain to work ,pubs closing is an attack on english culture is it not ? incarceration policy ? explain ! crime is rife in my area .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

felixthecat said:


> Fron the Ministry of Justice:
> 
> On 30 June 2010, the total prison population in England and Wales was 85,002. Of these, 21,878 prisoners (just under 26%) were from BME groups. This proportion is consistent with that recorded from 2006 to 2009 (when it was between 26%–27%).
> Ok so the stats are 18 months old but I can't imagine they've changed much. Under 26% is a bit different from the 80% you suggest.



a guess is a guess is a guess , like stats ive seen many different oppinions on this i just used the one that suited me .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He probably reckons the other 54% are passing as white and/or British.


as ive stated before ime not racist having many black and asian friends .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> EVIDENCE OF THE ISLAMIFICATION OF OUR JAILS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ime very interested in islam its the only religion i find tallies with my own views on women and homosex


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime very interested in islam its the only religion i find tallies with my own views on women and homosex


homosexuality that should have been


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> *corrected for you*


yes certainly a lighthouse keeper .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well if 80% of inmates are foriegn , hello ! dosnt take brain of britain to work ,pubs closing is an attack on english culture is it not ? incarceration policy ? explain ! crime is rife in my area .


Hmmm.

OK, taking that on face value: 80% of inmates aren't foreign. According to HM Prison Service, it's 14%.  (You can check up on that on http://www.justice.gov.uk/ ).  Your claim of 80% is wrong.

*"pubs closing is an attack on english culture is it not ?"*

How?  Explain how.  First of all, there are still 54,000 pubs in the UK. (http://www.beerandpub.com/pub_facts.aspx).  Secondly, how is it "an attack" on English culture if they did all close?  Who is doing the attacking if English people themselves are changing their habits (because that's what will be needed to close all those pubs: people to stop using them).

*incarceration policy ? explain !*

Incarceration means locking people up.  Incarceration policy is the sum of the decisions made about locking people up.  I've already explained to you that there is not a 1:1 correlation between prison population and criminal behaviour.  Not all criminality results in a prison sentence.  Some crimes are more likely to result in prison sentences than others.  Working class accused are far more likely to get a prison sentence than middle class accused, even for the same crimes.

*crime is rife in my area *

Is it more rife now than in the 1980s, or the 1960s, or the 1840s?  How do you know, what measures are you using?  And what does that mean about English culture?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> to liken me with that maniac , pure stupidity ! who are you anyway ?



I am your conscience, John.







(look, I've got the badge and everything)


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well its the norm to a homosexual , to me as a hetrosexual man its abnormal , if that hurts tough.


It's not abnormal, it's quite natural. Is your homophobia and racism the "norm", would you say?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 30, 2012)

Have there been many pubs round your way closed by gay foreigners, John?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> It's not abnormal, it's quite natural. Is your homophobia and racism the "norm", would you say?


homophobic to say i dont think its normal ok


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Have there been many pubs round your way closed by gay foreigners, John?


gay foriegners no of coarse i havnt , the rugby club i go to and i go to watch the local boxers and i support the army guys i also were old spice , now were is all this relevent ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> I am your conscience, John.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


only liars need a conscience .


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> only liars need a conscience .



Post of the day!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> as ive stated before ime not racist having many black and asian friends .



I haven't claimed that you're racist.
To meet your claim that 80% of inmates are black or foreign though, the other 54% of inmates need for the real figure of 26% to reach your claimed 80% would require exactly what I said - that 54% would have to be passing as white/British, while actually being black/foreign.

Perhaps if you stopped chating shite and actually produced some evidence for your claims, you wouldn't keep seeing claims of racism where they haven't been made. Just a thought.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> EVIDENCE OF THE ISLAMIFICATION OF OUR JAILS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The hilarious thing being that most jails built before 1995 didn't even provide facilities for Muslim (or Hindu) worship, while almost always having a permanent chapel and synagogue (a holdover from when us Yids were the cream of the criminal classes  ), and even now, there aren't really enough observant Muslims in the system to make it worth having a permanent Muslim place of worship in most jails. As ever, the main body of use of places of worship in prisons is Anglican, followed by Catholicism and a few of the Prod sects. Our jails are about as Islamicised as a plate of pork chops and roasties.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> (a holdover from when us Yids were the cream of the criminal classes  )



 Murdoch


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> OK, taking that on face value: 80% of inmates aren't foreign. According to HM Prison Service, it's 14%. (You can check up on that on http://www.justice.gov.uk/ ). Your claim of 80% is wrong.
> 
> ...



Fair point. Until the late 18th-early 19th century, pubs as we currently know them didn't exist. Beer was brewed in the home, and occasionally in post-houses and other transport way-stations. Pubs were a product of industrialisation and urbanisation, and therefore not culturally "English" at all, merely an obvious artifact of *any* society that undertook those processes.

As for why pubs are closing, that's not an attack on culture either, it's a product of the business practices of the brewers and pubcos, and of the stagnation of wages making the products that pubs sell increasingly unaffordable compared to the price of the same products for home consumption. Sometimes the ambience isn't enough to compensate for paying a 100-200% premium on the price of a pint.



> *incarceration policy ? explain !*
> 
> Incarceration means locking people up. Incarceration policy is the sum of the decisions made about locking people up. I've already explained to you that there is not a 1:1 correlation between prison population and criminal behaviour. Not all criminality results in a prison sentence. Some crimes are more likely to result in prison sentences than others. Working class accused are far more likely to get a prison sentence than middle class accused, even for the same crimes.
> 
> ...



He's not even going to attempt to answer this, you know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Murdoch



What, Murdoch's a Jew? First I've heard! I've never bumped into him down the synagogue.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, Murdoch's a Jew? First I've heard! I've never bumped into him down the synagogue.



 u would say that you bad old reptilian!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's not even going to attempt to answer this, you know.


I know.

The thing is, if John wants to take the piss out of Multiculturalists, he's very, very close to a line of attack that would be fun to watch play out.  But he's so busy repeating wild figures he can't justify that he's going to miss it again completely.

The fact is that Multiculturalists are almost inseparable from "race realists" on a number of John's favourite shibboleths.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> u would say that you bad old reptilian!



That's me, a Reptoid "Rothschild Zionist" from the tip of my tail to my iguana-like snout!


----------



## manny-p (Jan 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's me, a Reptoid "Rothschild Zionist" from the tip of my tail to my iguana-like snout!


Sounds cool to be honest. I want that look!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> only liars need a conscience .



No, everyone needs a conscience. It's something that helps keep people honest.

That's possibly why you're not terribly well-acquainted with the concept, though.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> gay foriegners no of coarse i havnt , the rugby club i go to and i go to watch the local boxers and i support the army guys i also were old spice , now were is all this relevent ?


Are you having a laugh? Or are you actually like this in real life?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> homophobic to say i dont think its normal ok



Sorry, you're going to have to work on the grammar there, John. Is English your first language?

Why do you feel homosexuality is abnormal and how is it destroying your country's culture?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't claimed that you're racist.
> To meet your claim that 80% of inmates are black or foreign though, the other 54% of inmates need for the real figure of 26% to reach your claimed 80% would require exactly what I said - that 54% would have to be passing as white/British, while actually being black/foreign.
> 
> Perhaps if you stopped chating shite and actually produced some evidence for your claims, you wouldn't keep seeing claims of racism where they haven't been made. Just a thought.


80% of inmates yes


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The hilarious thing being that most jails built before 1995 didn't even provide facilities for Muslim (or Hindu) worship, while almost always having a permanent chapel and synagogue (a holdover from when us Yids were the cream of the criminal classes  ), and even now, there aren't really enough observant Muslims in the system to make it worth having a permanent Muslim place of worship in most jails. As ever, the main body of use of places of worship in prisons is Anglican, followed by Catholicism and a few of the Prod sects. Our jails are about as Islamicised as a plate of pork chops and roasties.


ime thinking of converting to islam as a lot of their beliefs match mine ..ie their views on homosexuality and womens rights and criminals .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I know.
> 
> The thing is, if John wants to take the piss out of Multiculturalists, he's very, very close to a line of attack that would be fun to watch play out. But he's so busy repeating wild figures he can't justify that he's going to miss it again completely.
> 
> The fact is that Multiculturalists are almost inseparable from "race realists" on a number of John's favourite shibboleths.


ive been reading the koran its indeed very close to my way of thinking , and ime thinking of converting .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Sorry, you're going to have to work on the grammar there, John. Is English your first language?
> 
> Why do you feel homosexuality is abnormal and how is it destroying your country's culture?


it isnt destroying the countrys culture i never said that , get a grip , i actually said the influx of immigrants is changing the english culture .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ive been reading the koran its indeed very close to my way of thinking , and ime thinking of converting .


You'll have to stop drinking in pubs, then.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Are you having a laugh? Or are you actually like this in real life?


i dont think its funny losing my english heritage , and yes ime as real as smoke and mirrors .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You'll have to stop drinking in pubs, then.


danny you are up early ..i dont drink at all .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Sorry, you're going to have to work on the grammar there, John. Is English your first language?
> 
> Why do you feel homosexuality is abnormal and how is it destroying your country's culture?


as for my grammer , ive got a dodgy keyboard hence the dropped lette


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I know.
> 
> The thing is, if John wants to take the piss out of Multiculturalists, he's very, very close to a line of attack that would be fun to watch play out. But he's so busy repeating wild figures he can't justify that he's going to miss it again completely.
> 
> The fact is that Multiculturalists are almost inseparable from "race realists" on a number of John's favourite shibboleths.


i dont believe in multiculturalism at all and ime not afraid to say it .


----------



## xes (Jan 31, 2012)

you really are revealing yourself to be a racist bigotted cunt, aren't you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> danny you are up early ..i dont drink at all .


  For the last time - I'm not Australian!

You don't drink.  So, do you go to pubs?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i dont believe in multiculturalism at all and ime not afraid to say it .


Good for you.  Neither do I.

So, what is your problem with it?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime thinking of converting to islam as a lot of their beliefs match mine ..ie their views on homosexuality and womens rights and criminals .



Doesn't that go against your whole argument about your culture being eroded? Won't converting to Islam be an acceptance of "foreign" culture, John? Is it not a loss of your heritage?

What are your views on homosexuality etc, btw? And how do they match Islam's?

What do you do for a living, if I may be so bold as to enquire?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> 80% of inmates yes



In which case your statistic is utterly, proveably incorrect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime thinking of converting to islam as a lot of their beliefs match mine ..ie their views on homosexuality and womens rights and criminals .



No you're not. You're about as likely to *convert* to Islam as you are to Orthodox Judaism (that's an in-joke for other Jews, by the way).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i dont believe in multiculturalism at all and ime not afraid to say it .



I wasn't aware that multiculturalism was something that had to be believed in, like a religion.
I've always seen it merely as something (and I'm not talking about political multiculturism here) that evolves, even in backwards-arsed hillbilly territories like Lincolnshire.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 31, 2012)

Reading John's increasingly bizarre and contradictory posts, I find myself wondering when the big reveal is due...


----------



## xes (Jan 31, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Reading John's increasingly bizarre and contradictory posts, I find myself wondering when the big reveal is due...


what, that he's a fully paid up "member" of the EDL? (and a complete and utter wanker)


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 31, 2012)

xes said:


> what, that he's a fully paid up "member" of the EDL? (and a complete and utter wanker)


I gave him the benefit of the doubt, to begin with but it's getting more dubious by the minute, the deliberate spelling and grammar mistakes, the contradictions...


----------



## manny-p (Jan 31, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Reading John's increasingly bizarre and contradictory posts, I find myself wondering when the big reveal is due...


Hes a troll. No way is the person behind the keyboard like John in real life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Hes a troll. No way is the person behind the keyboard like John in real life.



Although they probably do have similar inadequacies, to be fair.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 31, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Hes a troll. No way is the person behind the keyboard like John in real life.


You'd hope so!!!


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

xes said:


> you really are revealing yourself to be a racist bigotted cunt, aren't you.


not at all racist as ive explained many times , as a convert to islam thats impossible isnt it ?


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> For the last time - I'm not Australian!
> 
> You don't drink. So, do you go to pubs?


i used to frequent pubs yes , but not recently as they have been killed off .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Good for you. Neither do I.
> 
> So, what is your problem with it?


to many entering the country .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Doesn't that go against your whole argument about your culture being eroded? Won't converting to Islam be an acceptance of "foreign" culture, John? Is it not a loss of your heritage?
> 
> What are your views on homosexuality etc, btw? And how do they match Islam's?
> 
> What do you do for a living, if I may be so bold as to enquire?


no converting to islam is a good thing as the values are the same as i aspouse .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although they probably do have similar inadequacies, to be fair.


ive heard this word (troll) before i asked was it an insult ? ime still waiting .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i used to frequent pubs yes , but not recently as they have been killed off .


as for you being australian , i think you said you were scottish , which baffled as at the time we were talking about english culture .


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i used to frequent pubs yes , but not recently as they have been killed off .


All pubs have been killed off? When did this happen? Who is responsible? Have you written to your MP?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> no converting to islam is a good thing as the values are the same as i aspouse .


What are Islamic values?

So, you're not against other cultures after all. It's an acceptance of "foreign" culture. It's not a loss of your heritage? 

 Again; what are your views on homosexuality etc, btw? And how do they match Islam's?

 What do you do for a living, if I may be so bold as to enquire?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ive heard this word (troll) before i asked was it an insult ? ime still waiting .



Is this the first site you've ever posted on? I ask because anyone who's used forums knows what trolls are and have you heard of google and wiki?

Is it an insult? No but it does describe your activity here.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i used to frequent pubs yes , but not recently as they have been killed off .


By people like you not going to them.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> as for you being australian , i think you said you were scottish , which baffled as at the time we were talking about english culture .


I was referring to your remark that I was up early. Despite my post having been made at one of my habitual posting times, and during the waking hours for people in this time zone.

As to your being baffled at me talking about English culture, why? I'm fairly up on it, as it happens. I even know some poems in English.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2012)

john cooper said:


> to many entering the country .


Is that a toast?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 1, 2012)

yes it is the first s


krtek a houby said:


> Is this the first site you've ever posted on? I ask because anyone who's used forums knows what trolls are and have you heard of google and wiki?
> 
> Is it an insult? No but it does describe your activity here.


 google and wiki ? explain ? and troll you still have not explained the meaning .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 1, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> What are Islamic values?
> 
> So, you're not against other cultures after all. It's an acceptance of "foreign" culture. It's not a loss of your heritage?
> 
> ...


islamic values are the same as my own , tolerance , obedience , a high regard for family life , looking after ones own community , respect for elders , anti crime , and a normal outlook regarding gender.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I was referring to your remark that I was up early. Despite my post having been made at one of my habitual posting times, and during the waking hours for people in this time zone.
> 
> As to your being baffled at me talking about English culture, why? I'm fairly up on it, as it happens. I even know some poems in English.


"ilkley moor bar tat " do you know that one ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> By people like you not going to them.


people like me ? and what exactly do you mean by that ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I was referring to your remark that I was up early. Despite my post having been made at one of my habitual posting times, and during the waking hours for people in this time zone.
> 
> As to your being baffled at me talking about English culture, why? I'm fairly up on it, as it happens. I even know some poems in English.


and i have read robbie burns ....and that wasnt easy .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 1, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Is that a toast?


no certainly not a toast at being flooded with migrants .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 1, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Is this the first site you've ever posted on? I ask because anyone who's used forums knows what trolls are and have you heard of google and wiki?
> 
> Is it an insult? No but it does describe your activity here.


my activity here , ime expressing my views on britain having been invaded...ok


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> "ilkley moor bar tat " do you know that one ?


Indeed.  Been there, too. But I wore a hat.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> people like me ? and what exactly do you mean by that ?


Non pub-goers. You bewail the alleged decline of the British Pub, but you don't use them. Use it or lose it - isn't that the slogan?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> no certainly not a toast at being flooded with migrants .


OK, so your objection to Multiculturalism is the scale of immigration?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes it is the first s
> google and wiki ? explain ? and troll you still have not explained the meaning .



It's pretty self evident. I find it highly unlikely that the first time you ever use the internet you happen upon u75. How did you find it?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> islamic values are the same as my own , tolerance , obedience , a high regard for family life , looking after ones own community , respect for elders , anti crime , and a normal outlook regarding gender.



Glad to see you've embraced multiculturalism. I don't see much tolerance when you complain about foreigners, homosexuals though. Are you in favour of Sharia law in Britain; as a convert I imagine you will be in favour of it?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> my activity here , ime expressing my views on britain having been invaded...ok



Yes but you say you are against foreign cultures because they are changing the country and yet you seek to embrace Islam. A bit contradictory, no?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ive heard this word (troll) before i asked was it an insult ? ime still waiting .



It means you live under bridges and eat goats, apparently.


----------



## xes (Feb 1, 2012)

john cooper said:


> islamic values are the same as my own , tolerance , obedience , a high regard for family life , looking after ones own community , respect for elders , anti crime , and a normal outlook regarding gender.


tollerence? You think saying things like "gays are un-natural" and "I don't believe in multiculturalism" is being tollerant?

You're a fucking idiot. You're a fucking racist, and you're a fucking homophibic cunt.

Wanting to convert to islam doesn't mean you're not a racist prick. As Islam is not a race, or are you incapable of understanding that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes but you say you are against foreign cultures because they are changing the country and yet you seek to embrace Islam. A bit contradictory, no?



That's because "john cooper" doesn't really exist as a person, he's just a persona adopted by someone who thinks he's more sharp than he actually is, hence all the disingenuousness and mangling. He thinks he's "provoking the wiberals", but actually he's posting signs that read "I'm a twat".


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's because "john cooper" doesn't really exist as a person, he's just a persona adopted by someone who thinks he's more sharp than he actually is, hence all the disingenuousness and mangling. He thinks he's "provoking the wiberals", but actually he's posting signs that read "I'm a twat".


Yeah, it must be a pet project to bait forumites. Time for binning?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Non pub-goers. You bewail the alleged decline of the British Pub, but you don't use them. Use it or lose it - isn't that the slogan?


ias i said in respnse to your question , i used to be a regular pub goer until the goverment deciced to get rid of pubs , up north that is .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's because "john cooper" doesn't really exist as a person, he's just a persona adopted by someone who thinks he's more sharp than he actually is, hence all the disingenuousness and mangling. He thinks he's "provoking the wiberals", but actually he's posting signs that read "I'm a twat".


i dont consider myself as sharp or clever , ime expressing a viewpoint with which you disagree , its a shame you have to use bad language to get yourself noticed .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i dont consider myself as sharp or clever , ime expressing a viewpoint with which you disagree , its a shame you have to use bad language to get yourself noticed .



I don't "disagree" with your viewpoint, John. I disagree that you actually hold it, and I haven't used bad language to "get myself noticed", I've used it to make a point about your character.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

Go to any city center , open your eyes wide turn 360 degrees , look at the population and then tell me england hasnt been invaded .


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ias i said in respnse to your question , i used to be a regular pub goer until the goverment deciced to get rid of pubs , up north that is .


When did the government decide to get rid of pubs?  That policy has been a bit of a failure, then, since there are still 54,000 if them!  (According to to the Beer and Pub Association).

If you are claiming you'd still go to pubs if there were any, knock yourself out!  It'd take about 150 years to have a pint a day in every one.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't "disagree" with your viewpoint, John. I disagree that you actually hold it, and I haven't used bad language to "get myself noticed", I've used it to make a point about your character.


ime of very good character and i dont warrant character assassination by you , you know my views and you disagree , but then to call my views the views of a twat is un warranted .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime of very good character and i dont warrant character assassination by you...



John, if I were practicing "character assassination" on you, you'd know about it. Don't flatter yourself.



> ...you know my views and you disagree , but then to call my views the views of a twat is un warranted .



I haven't called your views the views of a twat, I've called *you* a twat.

Can't you even get simple stuff like that right?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> When did the government decide to get rid of pubs? That policy has been a bit of a failure, then, since there are still 54,000 if them! (According to to the Beer and Pub Association).
> 
> If you are claiming you'd still go to pubs if there were any, knock yourself out! It'd take about 150 years to have a pint a day in every one.


you mis understand nearly everything i write as i have to keep saying my point of view over and over again , you disagree fair enough but using silly infrences and picking certain lines out to undermine my message is really underhand .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> John, if I were practicing "character assassination" on you, you'd know about it. Don't flatter yourself.
> 
> I haven't called your views the views of a twat, I've called *you* a twat.
> 
> Can't you even get simple stuff like that right?


but you dont know me so it must be my views you are calling ..it isnt rocket science


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you mis understand nearly everything i write as i have to keep saying my point of view over and over again , you disagree fair enough but using silly infrences and picking certain lines out to undermine my message is really underhand .


Tell me what inference I should take from your saying: "_i used to be a regular pub goer until the goverment deciced to get rid of pubs_ ".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> but you dont know me so it must be my views you are calling ..it isnt rocket science



This disingenuousness on your part really isn't becoming, you know.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Yeah, it must be a pet project to bait forumites. Time for binning?


thats a shame as you had some interesting things to say , as for baiting ? not a very truthfull thing to do is it ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Tell me what inference I should take from your saying: "_i used to be a regular pub goer until the goverment deciced to get rid of pubs_ ".


its really very simple ! the goverment realised that public were being used as a forum for the everyday issues and the goverment being all about control of the masses decides to close the public houses ..ie no smoking ..price hikes on rent as well as alcohol hence depriving the population of thier forum .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

public houses that is


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> This disingenuousness on your part really isn't becoming, you know.


disingenuousness is that lying


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its really very simple ! the goverment realised that public were being used as a forum for the everyday issues and the goverment being all about control of the masses decides to close the public houses ..ie no smoking ..price hikes on rent as well as alcohol hence depriving the population of thier forum .


There are still 54,000 pubs.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> disingenuousness is that lying


That is disingenuousness. ^


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> That is disingenuousness. ^


you said you were scottish is that disingenuous


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2012)

Blimey, how did I miss this twat?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you said you were scottish is that disingenuous


I can say "it's a braw bricht moonlit nicht the nicht".


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> There are still 54,000 pubs.


i can only describe my specific area regarding public houses pro rata 60% gone mind you it is a working class area .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Blimey, how did I miss this twat?


another one who uses bed language to get noticed are you 4ft 3 inches tall by any chance ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 2, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I can say "it's a braw bricht moonlit nicht the nicht".


very good as an admirer of the scots i can appreciate that , ive got a tip for you , dont call anybody a drongo its a bit of a give away


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> another one who uses bed language to get noticed are you 4ft 3 inches tall by any chance ?



Part of me is.

Is that a genuine photo of you, John?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> Go to any city center , open your eyes wide turn 360 degrees , look at the population and then tell me england hasnt been invaded .



I don't see any signs of this occupation, where are the tanks, the flags of the oppressor? Anyway, as you're soon to be part of the ummah, why does it bother you, this alleged invasion?

How will your upcoming conversion tally with trying to keep the pubs going, btw?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its really very simple ! the goverment realised that public were being used as a forum for the everyday issues and the goverment being all about control of the masses decides to close the public houses ..ie no smoking ..price hikes on rent as well as alcohol hence depriving the population of thier forum .



as a soon to be convert, why should this bother you in the slightest?


----------



## Random (Feb 2, 2012)

jesus christ, you're all at it still


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 2, 2012)

Random said:


> jesus christ, you're all at it still


It's an addiction


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't see any signs of this occupation, where are the tanks, the flags of the oppressor? Anyway, as you're soon to be part of the ummah, why does it bother you, this alleged invasion?
> 
> How will your upcoming conversion tally with trying to keep the pubs going, btw?


 its an unarmed occupation by ethnic majorities have you not noticed ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> It's an addiction


not as addictive as crack but close .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

Random said:


> jesus christ, you're all at it still


 its important the english losing thier identity in a sea of multiculturalism so i keep ramming the point home .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Part of me is.
> 
> Is that a genuine photo of you, John?


 very few things are genuine on here


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Tell me what inference I should take from your saying: "_i used to be a regular pub goer until the goverment deciced to get rid of pubs_ ".


 its simple if the pubs empty because of prices then the ambiance has gone just like the customers .


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its simple if the pubs empty because of prices then the ambiance has gone just like the customers .


And that's why you don't go.  Because until that happened, you used to be a regular.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> And that's why you don't go. Because until that happened, you used to be a regular.


 correct , but its a little cog its the big cogs that interest me .


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> correct , but its a little cog its the big cogs that interest me .


OK, so given that's that what I said in the post you said had taken the wrong inference, what did I incorrectly infer?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its an unarmed occupation by ethnic majorities have you not noticed ?


 We are all ethnic, you giblet


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its important the english losing thier identity in a sea of multiculturalism so i keep ramming the point home .


 
I see no points being made, rather a stream of barely ledgible slogans that even an EDL thug would be embarrassed by. You are not concerned with the English identity, in fact it would appear you are desperately searching for one - your alleged embrace of what you would call a "foreign culture" - Islam.


----------



## Gmart (Feb 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its important the english losing thier identity in a sea of multiculturalism so i keep ramming the point home .


Losing their identity? We never had one! We have been 'invaded' by people usually fleeing persecution, and/or simply moving from the poorer parts of the world to the richer ones for centuries. It is part of being British. Also those in power like immigrants because they tend to work harder and they don't complain as much as those who are second generation or more.

The UK has more basic problems than a simplistic immigration one which tends to go towards racism.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I see no points being made, rather a stream of barely ledgible slogans that even an EDL thug would be embarrassed by. You are not concerned with the English identity, in fact it would appear you are desperately searching for one - your alleged embrace of what you would call a "foreign culture" - Islam.


 edl thug ? thats a really bad comparison to make you have obviously completly missed the point .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Losing their identity? We never had one! We have been 'invaded' by people usually fleeing persecution, and/or simply moving from the poorer parts of the world to the richer ones for centuries. It is part of being British. Also those in power like immigrants because they tend to work harder and they don't complain as much as those who are second generation or more.
> 
> The UK has more basic problems than a simplistic immigration one which tends to go towards racism.


 why is it always seen as racism ? when the english talk about english culture ? or complain about losing thier identity , lets pretend it isnt happening .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> We are all ethnic, you giblet


 giblet ? to a degree of coarse we are .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I see no points being made, rather a stream of barely ledgible slogans that even an EDL thug would be embarrassed by. You are not concerned with the English identity, in fact it would appear you are desperately searching for one - your alleged embrace of what you would call a "foreign culture" - Islam.


 islam is the nearest thing to my beliefs ive found , spiritualy i mean .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, so given that's that what I said in the post you said had taken the wrong inference, what did I incorrectly infer?


 stating the obvious would be nearer .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

sometimes i feel like ime talking to people like this .


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 4, 2012)

I'm glad people are leaving JC to talk to himself.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm glad people are leaving JC to talk to himself.


 ive got the same initials as the almighty and you say that ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> very good as an admirer of the scots i can appreciate that , ive got a tip for you , dont call anybody a drongo its a bit of a give away


 
A giveaway of someone having watched "Neighbours" or "Home and Away", or even the "Crocodile Dundee" films.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its an unarmed occupation by ethnic majorities have you not noticed ?


 
That'd be the "ethnic majorities" that taken together account for just over 15% of the population of the UK, I take it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its important the english losing thier identity in a sea of multiculturalism so i keep ramming the point home .


 
All you keep ramming home is a claim that "English identity" is being lost. That isn't a *point*, it's only a claim, and a claim you've been entirely unable to substantiate.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That'd be the "ethnic majorities" that taken together account for just over 15% of the population of the UK, I take it?


 
Could JC be numerically dyselxic and reading that as 51%?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> correct , but its a little cog its the big cogs that interest me .


 
Are you sure you meant "co*g*s"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Could JC be numerically dyselxic and reading that as 51%?


 
Anything is possible with Our Lord, brother.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> We are all ethnic, you giblet


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> why is it always seen as racism ? when the english talk about english culture ? or complain about losing thier identity , lets pretend it isnt happening .


 
It isn't always seen as racism. It's seen as racism when such conversations are couched in such a way that the parties to the conversation are talking about English culture *in opposition to* other cultures, because such conversations entirely miss the fact that English culture, just like every other culture, isn't some static, homogeneous set of cultural rules carved in stone, but is actually a fluid entity that adjusts and hybridises over time. Go far enough back, and all cultures are made up of bits borrowed from other cultures.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Losing their identity? We never had one!


 
Not true. We've always had an identity, it's just that it changes as demographics and other social factors change.



> We have been 'invaded' by people usually fleeing persecution, and/or simply moving from the poorer parts of the world to the richer ones for centuries. It is part of being British. Also those in power like immigrants because they tend to work harder and they don't complain as much as those who are second generation or more.
> 
> The UK has more basic problems than a simplistic immigration one which tends to go towards racism.


 
Rather, the immigration argument "problem" tends to proceed from racism, or at least a degree of ignorance and/or prejudice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> sometimes i feel like ime talking to people like this .View attachment 16393


 
You're more like a


----------



## Random (Feb 4, 2012)

fuck's sake, panda


----------



## john cooper (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That'd be the "ethnic majorities" that taken together account for just over 15% of the population of the UK, I take it?


 the english race are going to be gypsies roaming all over the world with no identity , the scots welsh and irish promote thier culture and so they should , cant do that if you are english as its racist , if there was a english national party it would be denegrated as racist , but the snp best thing since sliced bread and heralded as splendid in the media , double standards i say .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 5, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Could JC be numerically dyselxic and reading that as 51%?


 15% you obviously believe the shite you are fed through the media i dont .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 5, 2012)

now i know why you talk it !


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the english race are going to be gypsies roaming all over the world with no identity , the scots welsh and irish promote thier culture and so they should , cant do that if you are english as its racist , if there was a english national party it would be denegrated as racist , but the snp best thing since sliced bread and heralded as splendid in the media , double standards i say .


 
Okay. Answer the question that's repeatedly been put to you, then: What is this English culture that you feel you're not allowed to promote?

Oh, and by the way, with Scots, Irish and Welsh culture, they're all, in part, based around a minority language, which makes them a lot easier to hang nationalism from without straying into racism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

john cooper said:


> 15% you obviously believe the shite you are fed through the media i dont .


 
Just over 15% isn't a "media" figure, it's the figure established through the ONS comparing loads of different stats, including last year's census. Even if you give it a 100% margin for error (and -/+ 2% is *unrealistically high for an error margin), that's 30% still nowhere near an "ethnic majority".
Stop talking out of your arse, there's a good lad.*


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2012)

VP I now award you the title of Troll Feeder in Chief


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Random said:


> VP I now award you the title of Troll Feeder in Chief


 
Thanks.

(wipes arse on award, bins it).


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the english race are going to be gypsies roaming all over the world with no identity


No they aren't.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Okay. Answer the question that's repeatedly been put to you, then: What is this English culture that you feel you're not allowed to promote?
> 
> Oh, and by the way, with Scots, Irish and Welsh culture, they're all, in part, based around a minority language, which makes them a lot easier to hang nationalism from without straying into racism.


 ime half scottish as my grandfather was born in paisley and half welsh as my grandmother was born in cardiff and couldnt speak english only welsh , that is why ive agreed in previous posts the celtic nations are the true indiginous people ? you are good at picking parts out , pity you never noticed that ? as an englishman as i was born in england the culture that i was brought up in has vanished hence my perpetual ranting about it and immigration is to blame as its a flood .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> No they aren't.


 no they arnt ! that it ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 6, 2012)

Random said:


> VP I now award you the title of Troll Feeder in Chief


 nobody has yet explained the word (troll) maybe you know as you seem to use the word a lot ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It isn't always seen as racism. It's seen as racism when such conversations are couched in such a way that the parties to the conversation are talking about English culture *in opposition to* other cultures, because such conversations entirely miss the fact that English culture, just like every other culture, isn't some static, homogeneous set of cultural rules carved in stone, but is actually a fluid entity that adjusts and hybridises over time. Go far enough back, and all cultures are made up of bits borrowed from other cultures.


 in opposition to other cultures ? ive never couched my opinions in that form , nay other cultures enhance in many ways the indiginous population , my groan is and its admited by border control its a flood now and nobody knows how many immigrants are coming here thats thier words not mine .


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> no they arnt ! that it ?


Yes.  That's it.  I'll give you £20 if  the "English race" turns out to be "gypsies roaming all over the world with no identity".  You can set the time-frame.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 6, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes. That's it. I'll give you £20 if the "English race" turns out to be "gypsies roaming all over the world with no identity". You can set the time-frame.


 ime not a gambling man so i decline the bet, its a sweeping statement i know but as the numbers decline , by the way there is an exodus at the moment of english going to spain to live portugal all the europian contries and many of my friends are now in vietnam , why ? you may ask simple they are 4th class citicens in thier own country thats why .


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime not a gambling man so i decline the bet, its a sweeping statement i know but as the numbers decline , by the way there is an exodus at the moment of english going to spain to live portugal all the europian contries and many of my friends are now in vietnam , why ? you may ask simple they are 4th class citicens in thier own country thats why .


People have always emigrated.  It's very normal where I grew up: people leave. Many for overseas. That isn't what you said, though. Your initial statement suggested there would be nobody of English descent left in these islands.  Which won't happen.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime not a gambling man so i decline the bet, its a sweeping statement i know but as the numbers decline , by the way there is an exodus at the moment of english going to spain to live portugal all the europian contries and many of my friends are now in vietnam.


 
Good. More room for the rest of us.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime half scottish as my grandfather was born in paisley and half welsh as my grandmother was born in cardiff and couldnt speak english only welsh , that is why ive agreed in previous posts the celtic nations are the true indiginous people ? you are good at picking parts out , pity you never noticed that ? as an englishman as i was born in england the culture that i was brought up in has vanished hence my perpetual ranting about it and immigration is to blame as its a flood .


 
I didn't ask for your family tree, you doughnut, I asked you to tell me what this "English culture" you keep talking about is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> in opposition to other cultures ? ive never couched my opinions in that form , nay other cultures enhance in many ways the indiginous population , my groan is and its admited by border control its a flood now and nobody knows how many immigrants are coming here thats thier words not mine .


 
John, you're a liar. You've said, on this very thread, that "other" cultures are undermining English culture.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime not a gambling man so i decline the bet, its a sweeping statement i know but as the numbers decline , by the way there is an exodus at the moment of english going to spain to live portugal all the europian contries and many of my friends are now in vietnam , why ? you may ask simple they are 4th class citicens in thier own country thats why .


 
Odd.

The few people I know who're migrating, are doing so because they've either got better-paying jobs in the country they're migrating to, or because they're collecting their pension and want to make their money go further.

Not simple at all, John. Unless you're thick.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> edl thug ? thats a really bad comparison to make you have obviously completly missed the point .


 You haven't made any points. You bemoan foreign culture, cannot articulate what English culture is and at the same time, clamour to embrace Islam because you say their views on homosexuals and women are the same as yours. Which you refuse to elaborate on.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime not a gambling man so i decline the bet, its a sweeping statement i know but as the numbers decline , by the way *there is an exodus at the moment of english going to spain to live portugal all the europian contries and many of my friends are now in vietnam , why ? you may ask simple they are 4th class citicens in thier own country thats why* .


 
I see, so a bit like an "invasion", then - but your mates are swarming the continent and SE Asia, instead?

I hope they don't close all the bars down on their travels


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> nobody has yet explained the word (troll)


Several people have, including me.  A troll is someone who posts with the intention of provoking reaction, often by faking a point-of-view that they hope will wind people up. In short, somebody on the wind-up. This has already been explained.   It has been suggested to you that you could have found this by Googling, so your repeated protests of ignorance do look somewhat disingenuous.


----------



## Random (Feb 6, 2012)

danny i dub thee sir troll-feeds-alot


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 6, 2012)

this is awesome


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 7, 2012)

He's very good isn't he?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> John, you're a liar. You've said, on this very thread, that "other" cultures are undermining English culture.


 i said it was a possible outcome yes because of the sheer numbers involved .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Several people have, including me. A troll is someone who posts with the intention of provoking reaction, often by faking a point-of-view that they hope will wind people up. In short, somebody on the wind-up. This has already been explained. It has been suggested to you that you could have found this by Googling, so your repeated protests of ignorance do look somewhat disingenuous.


 ime no troll then , i give my personal opinion ok its not agreed with i see that but that changes nothing i will still express my opinion .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 8, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I see, so a bit like an "invasion", then - but your mates are swarming the continent and SE Asia, instead?
> 
> I hope they don't close all the bars down on their travels


 they can afford to use the bars in asia as its very cheap unlike here .


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime no troll then , i give my personal opinion ok its not agreed with i see that but that changes nothing i will still express my opinion .


 
But your opinion is standard hogwash about stuff you can't offer any stats/links/back up to.

Troll or not, there's not much credibility to your posts.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 8, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> You haven't made any points. You bemoan foreign culture, cannot articulate what English culture is and at the same time, clamour to embrace Islam because you say their views on homosexuals and women are the same as yours. Which you refuse to elaborate on.


 they keep women in thier place and repeat that homosexuality is a sin , obviously this only means something if you are religious .as for foreigners they contribute a lot ive
 said i dont appreciate other cultures its the amount coming over i object to , and yes islam does match how i think as its a very tolerant religion .


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> they can afford to use the bars in asia as its very cheap unlike here .


 So, they are economic migrants in that case? Why are economic migrants who come to the UK scorned and described as a "flood", do you think?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Odd.
> 
> The few people I know who're migrating, are doing so because they've either got better-paying jobs in the country they're migrating to, or because they're collecting their pension and want to make their money go further.
> 
> Not simple at all, John. Unless you're thick.


 well the people i know who are going , are doing so because of no work no money little prospects obviously different classes of people mine are working class


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> *they keep women in thier place and repeat that homosexuality is a sin* , obviously this only means something if you are religious .as for foreigners they contribute a lot ive
> said i dont appreciate other cultures its the amount coming over i object to , and yes islam does match how i think as its a very tolerant religion .


 
What is a woman's place, john? Explain this "sin" business and how it pertains to one sexuality, please.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime no troll then , i give my personal opinion ok its not agreed with i see that but that changes nothing i will still express my opinion .


Except you've not really given much of an opinion, because when I've asked you supplementary questions you've avoided them, ignored them, or called it old ground that you don't want to go over again. I'd like to explore your opinions, but they don't seem to go very deep. They don't go beyond the odd comment about immigration being like invasion.

This probably why a lot of people think you don't really hold those opinions at all, but are in fact a banned returner (a term meaning former member of these boards who has been excluded for some naughtiness to which the Mod team took exception) just trying to get a rise out of the locals. If this is not the case, why not discuss your views in more depth? If you think them valid, surely you'd want to show up your interlocutors with the unanswerable incision of your position?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i said it was a possible outcome yes because of the sheer numbers involved .


 
The "sheer numbers" that boil down to a couple of hundred thousand once you factor in emigrants as well as immigrants?

get a grip!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well the people i know who are going , are doing so because of no work no money little prospects obviously different classes of people mine are working class


 
Yeah, I'm sure they are John, and I'm sure you are too, salt-of-the-earth.
The question is, why would you go to anywhere in Europe if you have no work and no money? It's not exactly cheap to live in most of the EU states, even the ones like Bulgaria and Romania, and unemployment, except in 3 or 4 of the 28 EU states, is worse than here.

I reckon you're telling porkies, John. Making stuff up to fit whatever bit of spurious bollocks you spew out.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Except you've not really given much of an opinion, because when I've asked you supplementary questions you've avoided them, ignored them, or called it old ground that you don't want to go over again. I'd like to explore your opinions, but they don't seem to go very deep. They don't go beyond the odd comment about immigration being like invasion.
> 
> This probably why a lot of people think you don't really hold those opinions at all, but are in fact a banned returner (a term meaning former member of these boards who has been excluded for some naughtiness to which the Mod team took exception) just trying to get a rise out of the locals. If this is not the case, why not discuss your views in more depth? If you think them valid, surely you'd want to show up your interlocutors with the unanswerable incision of your position?


 banned returner? why do you keep trying to denegrate my words is it a form of feeling wanted by the masses ? your comfort blanket maybe , as for your facts and figures ime very sceptical .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, I'm sure they are John, and I'm sure you are too, salt-of-the-earth.
> The question is, why would you go to anywhere in Europe if you have no work and no money? It's not exactly cheap to live in most of the EU states, even the ones like Bulgaria and Romania, and unemployment, except in 3 or 4 of the 28 EU states, is worse than here.
> 
> I reckon you're telling porkies, John. Making stuff up to fit whatever bit of spurious bollocks you spew out.


 ime used this kind of diatribe or should i say diatripe of you so arrows have gone clear over my head ,were do you get your facts of danny maybe?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> islam does match how i think as its a very tolerant religion .


 
In what way is Islam tolerant, John?

And when you say "islam" are you referring to Waholyist Islam or Phartistic? The Waholes are far from tolerant in my opinion, though you may have a point about the Phartists, but to be honest I'm not sure you've thought any of this through properly.

Where do you live? Is there a significant immigrant population there?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> banned returner? why do you keep trying to denegrate my words is it a form of feeling wanted by the masses ? your comfort blanket maybe , as for your facts and figures ime very sceptical .


John, it wasn't me who said that.  I'm telling you what people are thinking, and why they're thinking it.

Which facts and figures are you talking about?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime used this kind of diatribe or should i say diatripe of you so arrows have gone clear over my head ,were do you get your facts of danny maybe?


 
My facts? Multiple sources. ONS stats, research done by interest groups like MigrationWatch. I get 'em from all over. Where do you get yours from, John? The khazi?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> banned returner? why do you keep trying to denegrate my words is it a form of feeling wanted by the masses ? your comfort blanket maybe , as for your facts and figures ime very sceptical .


 
Of course you're sceptical. So is anyone who has their beliefs challenged.
Most people, at least the ones who've grown a pair of bollocks, will then check around to see whether those challenges have any validity. You, though, you just spew a bit more incoherence and nonsense instead.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> banned returner? why do you keep trying to denegrate my words is it a form of feeling wanted by the masses ? your comfort blanket maybe , as for your facts and figures ime very sceptical .


 
Where are your facts & figures, john? Forgive me for being sceptical...


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Where are your facts & figures, john? Forgive me for being sceptical...


"80% of criminals are foreign".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

So, ern, flimsier or derf?
Or just a driveller?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, ern, flimsier or derf?
> Or just a driveller?


don't think it's ern, he can at least spell. flimsier's likely sleeping off a drunk somewhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime no troll then , i give my personal opinion ok its not agreed with i see that but that changes nothing i will still express my opinion .


and you'll continue to be ripped to shreds


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2012)

He's just a fucking idiot. No good as a troll/returner and thick as pig shit if he's for real.

I'm bored of him.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> In what way is Islam tolerant, John?
> 
> And when you say "islam" are you referring to Waholyist Islam or Phartistic? The Waholes are far from tolerant in my opinion, though you may have a point about the Phartists, but to be honest I'm not sure you've thought any of this through properly.
> 
> Where do you live? Is there a significant immigrant population there?


 yes there is a problem here , to many welsh .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> He's just a fucking idiot. No good as a troll/returner and thick as pig shit if he's for real.
> 
> I'm bored of him.


 i dont know were you suddenly appeared from but with that kind of language ime very glad you are no longer taking part in this debate .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and you'll continue to be ripped to shreds


 ripped to shreds ? thats a violent response , i suggest a power wank might be the answer .


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ripped to shreds ? thats a violent response , i suggest a power wank might be the answer .


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ripped to shreds ? thats a violent response , i suggest a power wank might be the answer .


Well, that kind of language is out of character, John.  You disappoint me.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ripped to shreds ? thats a violent response , i suggest a power wank might be the answer .


 
So, how was it? Feeling calmer now?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm noticing john's not actually answering any questions regarding the intricacies of Islam - just wishy washy responses on how the religion's views on women and homosexuals fit in with his own - which he won't elaborate on, either.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 10, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, that kind of language is out of character, John. You disappoint me.


 He's being indoctrinated by the u75 culture!


----------



## john cooper (Feb 10, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, that kind of language is out of character, John. You disappoint me.


sound advice under the circumstances .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 10, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm noticing john's not actually answering any questions regarding the intricacies of Islam - just wishy washy responses on how the religion's views on women and homosexuals fit in with his own - which he won't elaborate on, either.


 ime only just looking into it , but be assured i will be reporting back.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 10, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> He's being indoctrinated by the u75 culture!


 i hope not .


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime only just looking into it , but be assured i will be reporting back.


 
Hang on, you said you agree with Islam's views without actually knowing what they are?

Ok, I'll make it easier - state clearly and precisely please, where a woman's place is and what your views on homosexuals are.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 11, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime only just looking into it , but be assured i will be reporting back.


 
In shaa'Allah!


----------



## john cooper (Feb 11, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Hang on, you said you agree with Islam's views without actually knowing what they are?
> 
> Ok, I'll make it easier - state clearly and precisely please, where a woman's place is and what your views on homosexuals are.


 i suggest you back track on the thread as ive explained my views many times .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 11, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Hang on, you said you agree with Islam's views without actually knowing what they are?
> 
> Ok, I'll make it easier - state clearly and precisely please, where a woman's place is and what your views on homosexuals are.


 quite a lot to digest , up to now ive seen nothing that clashes with my views on life ect .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 11, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> In shaa'Allah!


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ect .


Opposed or in favour?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 13, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Opposed or in favour?


 well i used to be indicisive but now ime not so sure .


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i suggest you back track on the thread as ive explained my views many times .


 
Banned already? Oh well...


----------



## john cooper (Feb 14, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Banned already? Oh well...


 i dont see it as a ban just as a polite suggestion i can handle that .


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i dont see it as a ban just as a polite suggestion i can handle that .


 
Think of it as a sign.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i suggest you back track on the thread as ive explained my views many times .


  No, you haven't.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> quite a lot to digest , up to now ive seen nothing that clashes with my views on life ect .


 And what are your views and how do they tally with Islam - a "foreign" culture?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 16, 2012)

my views simple ..non violence , tolerance , charity , love thats just for starters .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 16, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Think of it as a sign.


 a sign , maybe you are right but i doubt it very much , as it would be a first .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Opposed or in favour?


 lets put it this way ..ime stood at a fork in the road , do i go left or do i go right ? what would a liberal do ? i think i will just stand hear scratching my head .


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> lets put it this way ..ime stood at a fork in the road , do i go left or do i go right ? what would a liberal do ? i think i will just stand hear scratching my head .


What would a liberal do?  You'd need to ask a liberal.  But, personally, I am not in favour of ECT, and refer you to the study done on behalf of Mind in the 90s.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> my views simple ..non violence , tolerance , charity , love thats just for starters .


 
And your views on homosexuals and women? You'll love and tolerate them, correct?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 18, 2012)

m


danny la rouge said:


> What would a liberal do? You'd need to ask a liberal. But, personally, I am not in favour of ECT, and refer you to the study done on behalf of Mind in the 90s.


 mind is a mental health institution ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 18, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> And your views on homosexuals and women? You'll love and tolerate them, correct?


 on women , the majority i find are selfish self centered ego maniacs as for homosexuals ime in different .


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> on women , the majority i find are selfish self centered ego maniacs as for homosexuals ime in different .


So, it would be fair to say you don't like women?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 18, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> So, it would be fair to say you don't like women?


i wouldnt say i hate women , its as i see them through experience having been married 23 years and engaged 14 times i think ime an authority .


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i wouldnt say i hate women , its as i see them through experience having been married 23 years and engaged 14 times i think ime an authority .


 
Maybe you need to have some new experiences...


----------



## john cooper (Feb 18, 2012)

you may be right , its certainly a thought


----------



## john cooper (Feb 18, 2012)

back to the thread , an englishman is now like the red squirrel dying out because of an invasive species .


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> back to the thread , an englishman is now like the red squirrel dying out because of an invasive species .


Nonsense. You lot survived the Romans (when incidentally you had plenty of new blood for the gene pool), you'll survive us lot too.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 18, 2012)

you lot ? i assume you aint english ? again we are over run a bit like a plague ide say , ive been told immigrants add something to our culture , i cant see it .


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you lot ? i assume you aint english ? again we are over run a bit like a plague ide say , ive been told immigrants add something to our culture , i cant see it .


 
A plague, you say? Are you swamped by us foreigners? Ah well, there's nowt as blind as those that won't see...


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> m
> mind is a mental health institution ?


Well, yes, but "institution" is an unfortunate choice on words in the context.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ive been told immigrants add something to our culture , i cant see it .


Well, you earlier defined "culture" as a "way of life".  Would you say immigrants have added nothing to your way of life?

This is a question, not a manifesto.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 18, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, you earlier defined "culture" as a "way of life". Would you say immigrants have added nothing to your way of life?
> 
> This is a question, not a manifesto.


 
I think for once, jc has made himself clear. He sees foreigners here as a plague.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 18, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I think for once, jc has made himself clear. He sees foreigners here as a plague.


Plague adds something to your life: a bacterial infection.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 18, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Plague adds something to your life: a bacterial infection.


Speaking of which, I'm curious about jc's 14 engagements, aren't you?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 18, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Speaking of which, I'm curious about jc's 14 engagements, aren't you?


Not really.  Nor surprised, to be honest.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 18, 2012)

john cooper said:


> back to the thread , an englishman is now like the red squirrel dying out because of an invasive species .


 
You don't half spout a lot of rubbish. All human beings belong to the same species. They also all belong to the same race.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 22, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> A plague, you say? Are you swamped by us foreigners? Ah well, there's nowt as blind as those that won't see...


 i can see thats the problem many cannot .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 22, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, you earlier defined "culture" as a "way of life". Would you say immigrants have added nothing to your way of life?
> 
> This is a question, not a manifesto.


 nothing what so ever ..yes i would


----------



## john cooper (Feb 22, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I think for once, jc has made himself clear. He sees foreigners here as a plague.


 i didnt say they were a plague , my infrence was of to many coming here , hence i likened the flood to a plague .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 22, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Plague adds something to your life: a bacterial infection.


 no an infection is an wanted germ in the body , ime not saying immigrants are not wanted ime just saying there are to many .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 22, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Speaking of which, I'm curious about jc's 14 engagements, aren't you?


 why curious ? i had 14 failed romances , nothing to brag about there .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 22, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Not really. Nor surprised, to be honest.


 not surprised infers you have a low opinion of me thats a shame .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 22, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You don't half spout a lot of rubbish. All human beings belong to the same species. They also all belong to the same race.


 thats in correct all human beings are not the same , there are at least 3 different species .


----------



## deke t lefel (Feb 22, 2012)

which do you belong to?


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 22, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thats in correct all human beings are not the same , there are at least 3 different species .


 
Have you a link to show that? I know it's not possible, but it would be interesting to see what you came up with.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thats in correct all human beings are not the same , there are at least 3 different species .


That's utter nonsense, and I'm fairly sure you know it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thats in correct all human beings are not the same , there are at least 3 different species .


 
Oh, do fuck off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i can see thats the problem many cannot .


 
Which makes you either correct, which is unlikely given that you can't support any of your contentions with anything beyond blather and spurious statistics, *or*, far more likely, you're utterly delusional and an idiot.

My money is on the latter.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thats in correct all human beings are not the same , there are at least 3 different species .


 
I feel a good punchline coming on. Drum rolls and all that. Get the timing just right now.


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thats in correct all human beings are not the same , there are at least 3 different species .


   Excellent!!! Can we keep him?? Please?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 23, 2012)

It looks like john cooper is going to become a classic contributor to Urban75. At some point we should be able to put together a booklet entitled The _Wise Sayings of john cooper_ before he is finally banned, or flounces. I am glad several people have copied his 'species' comment so that he cannot delete it and deny it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 24, 2012)

I'd love to see him back up that claim, the big oaf. Except he won't. It will be more dribbling whimsy and observations on harsh language.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 24, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I'd love to see him back up that claim


Well, he can't.  Not unless he's talking about extinct members of our genus, like H. habilis or H. erectus.  But even then, he's got the numbers wrong.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 24, 2012)

deke t lefel said:


> which do you belong to?


 well we all originate from africa , so i guess its african.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which makes you either correct, which is unlikely given that you can't support any of your contentions with anything beyond blather and spurious statistics, *or*, far more likely, you're utterly delusional and an idiot.
> 
> My money is on the latter.


 this kind of critisism is mild coming from you , but i will be getting straight back when ive done my home work .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 24, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It looks like john cooper is going to become a classic contributor to Urban75. At some point we should be able to put together a booklet entitled The _Wise Sayings of john cooper_ before he is finally banned, or flounces. I am glad several people have copied his 'species' comment so that he cannot delete it and deny it.


 i dont intend to deny it , i see there are sceptics among you so i will do my homework and get back .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 24, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I'd love to see him back up that claim, the big oaf. Except he won't. It will be more dribbling whimsy and observations on harsh language.


 big oaf ? you got half right but oaf naaaa .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 24, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, he can't. Not unless he's talking about extinct members of our genus, like H. habilis or H. erectus. But even then, he's got the numbers wrong.


 yes thats it exactly , we originate from different species got the numbers wrong hey hoo .


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes thats it exactly , we originate from different species got the numbers wrong hey hoo .


You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Those species are extinct, and there were more than three of them.  Many more.  The species that exists now, H. sapiens, is but one species.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> this kind of critisism is mild coming from you , but i will be getting straight back when ive done my home work .


 
So you keep promising, but all you ever come up with is unverifiable bullshit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, he can't. Not unless he's talking about extinct members of our genus, like H. habilis or H. erectus. But even then, he's got the numbers wrong.


 
He's probably trying to work the H. Sapiens/neanderthal angle. Of course, neanderthal man stopped being a distinct species, as opposed to a contribution in the H. Sapiens gene pool dozens of ice ages ago.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i dont intend to deny it , i see there are sceptics among you so i will do *my homework* and get back .


 
School finish early today, did it?


----------



## deke t lefel (Feb 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well we all originate from africa , so i guess its african.


so all humans belong to the species of african?
0/10, see Head


----------



## deke t lefel (Feb 26, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i dont intend to deny it , i see there are sceptics among you so i will do my homework and get back .


maybe you could start with considering the cultural effects of africans migrating out of africa?
for instance, would the resident africans still consider the emigrants to be human?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 2, 2012)

well after careful consideration , and reading up about species and origins of man , ime convinced we are all alien hybrids .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 2, 2012)




----------



## Gmart (Mar 3, 2012)

The best definition I have come across of different species, is when they cannot cross breed - which makes the human race all one race. The moment someone starts trying to treat one set of people differently to another, that is privilege and most people are against that.


----------



## deke t lefel (Mar 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> View attachment 17176


what are you trying to say? that women are aliens, men are from earth and after interbreeding.... what?


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 5, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well after careful consideration , and reading up about species and origins of man , ime convinced we are all alien hybrids .


 
From racist to conspiraloon within a page. Outstanding. Are you done yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2012)

No i a m not.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2012)

oops


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 5, 2012)

Well jc's 'alien species' post means that we can now dismiss him as a complete nutter, far worse than Jazzz. No need to try to interact with him any more. We have been trolled.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

Gmart said:


> The best definition I have come across of different species, is when they cannot cross breed - which makes the human race all one race. The moment someone starts trying to treat one set of people differently to another, that is privilege and most people are against that.


 Dont the strong always dominate the weak ? its just the way its always been .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Well jc's 'alien species' post means that we can now dismiss him as a complete nutter, far worse than Jazzz. No need to try to interact with him any more. We have been trolled.


 Well no think about it , was jesus an alien .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> From racist to conspiraloon within a page. Outstanding. Are you done yet?


 no ime not done , ive got many more questions to ask .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

deke t lefel said:


> what are you trying to say? that women are aliens, men are from earth and after interbreeding.... what?


 no ime saying we have been cloned and we are being harvested by aliens 100,000 people go missing every year , to were ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> no ime not done , ive got many more questions to ask .


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> no ime saying we have been cloned and we are being harvested by aliens 100,000 people go missing every year , to were ?


i don't know why you're concerning, it strains the bounds of credulity to think that anyone - or anything - would consider even thinking of cloning and harvesting you


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


>


 good choice !


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> no ime saying we have been cloned and we are being harvested by aliens 100,000 people go missing every year , to were ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

Again your insulting tomes , i find it quite strange , all i can think is ive said your writings are bullshit but i dont remember doing .


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> Again your insulting tomes , i find it quite strange , all i can think is ive said your writings are bullshit but i dont remember doing .


i don't think you know what a tome is.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 7, 2012)

john cooper said:


> no ime not done , ive got many more questions to ask .


 
Sort of like "why am I here" and other deep stuff? I'm wondering why you're here too.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 7, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think you know what a tome is.


I do imagine you surrounded by insulting tomes, though, Pickman's.  I see you, between posts, flicking through them, Monty Burns-like:  

"Hmm. 'Quailing, mammering, plume-plucked fustilarian'.  I haven't used that today".


----------



## deke t lefel (Mar 7, 2012)

john cooper said:


> no ime saying we have been cloned and we are being harvested by aliens 100,000 people go missing every year , to were ?


there are 7 billion people on the planet, these aliens haven't got much of an appetite have they!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 7, 2012)

deke t lefel said:


> there are 7 billion people on the planet, these aliens haven't got much of an appetite have they!


 
There would be double that without our extraterrestrial gourmet chums. We should be grateful we don't receive our just desserts whilst the aliens still want us for their desserts.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 12, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> There would be double that without our extraterrestrial gourmet chums. We should be grateful we don't receive our just desserts whilst the aliens still want us for their desserts.


 its just another probability thrown in ,britain has been invaded its clear for all to see , immigration needs to be cut dramatically , i blame succesive goverments for engineering the downfall of the (english) way of life .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 12, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Sort of like "why am I here" and other deep stuff? I'm wondering why you're here too.


 ime here puting my view on why england has been invaded , i know in the title it says can , forget that it happened .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 12, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> There would be double that without our extraterrestrial gourmet chums. We should be grateful we don't receive our just desserts whilst the aliens still want us for their desserts.


 the alien angle is one to put , ime open minded whenever a goverment tries to make a theory look stupid you have to ask yourself , why ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think you know what a tome is.


 its a large book , as in large book of knowledge , try reading one .


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2012)

i don't know why you bother


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 12, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime here puting my view on why england has been invaded ,


You haven't once mentioned "why".

Are you going to?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 13, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You haven't once mentioned "why".
> 
> Are you going to?


 why? the thread implies (can britain be invaded) and ive always stated , that it has already been invaded and given my reasons why i believe that , pretty clear really .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 13, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know why you bother


 i bother because i think its important to state view points that many people hold but cannot express , so is it important , to me yes .


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> why? the thread implies (can britain be invaded) and ive always stated , that it has already been invaded and given my reasons why i believe that , pretty clear really .


You said you were here putting forward your view on "why england has been invaded". I must have missed that post. Can you point me to it?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 13, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You said you were here putting forward your view on "why england has been invaded". I must have missed that post. Can you point me to it?


 you asked this question , and i answered , go to any major city center stand on a box turn 360% looking at the population and then tell me we have not been invaded ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you asked this question , and i answered , go to any major city center stand on a box turn 360% looking at the population and then tell me we have not been invaded ?


You keep saying we have been invaded, but you said above you were going to say something of _why_.  So, go on: why have we been invaded?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i bother because i think its important to state view points that many people hold but cannot express , so is it important , to me yes .


On your own terms then you're a failure


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you asked this question , and i answered , go to any major city center stand on a box turn 360% looking at the population and then tell me we have not been invaded ?


 
You are right. I also look askance at all those telephone ariels.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you asked this question , and i answered , go to any major city center stand on a box turn 360% looking at the population and then tell me we have not been invaded ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you asked this question , and i answered , go to any major city center stand on a box turn 360% looking at the population and then tell me we have not been invaded ?


you fucking septic


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> why? the thread implies (can britain be invaded) and ive always stated , that it has already been invaded and given my reasons why i believe that , pretty clear really .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You keep saying we have been invaded, but you said above you were going to say something of _why_. So, go on: why have we been invaded?


 its been orchestrated by succesive goverments to undermine the british workforce , enabling cheap labour hence putting the british workforce back into poverty .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


>


 thats just what the indiginous population are lacking , the will to resist i hope i live long enough to see it .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> On your own terms then you're a failure


 from little acorns do mighty oaks grow .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You are right. I also look askance at all those telephone ariels.


 there must be logic in this , where though ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you fucking septic


 septic ?


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thats just what the indiginous population are lacking , the will to resist i hope i live long enough to see it .


 
Define "indiginous" population.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its been orchestrated by succesive goverments to undermine the british workforce , enabling cheap labour hence putting the british workforce back into poverty .


Wey hey!  That's the first time you've answered the question that was asked you!

Well done.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its been orchestrated by succesive goverments to undermine the british workforce , enabling cheap labour hence putting the british workforce back into poverty .


 
So, the invasion is not a dastardly foreign invention, it's been put into motion by various Labour & Conservative Govts in order to send the "indigenous" folk into poverty? And this results in what, exactly?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> So, the invasion is not a dastardly foreign invention, it's been put into motion by various Labour & Conservative Govts in order to send the "indigenous" folk into poverty? And this results in what, exactly?


 cheap labour to serve the rich , ie the service industry its the only industry left in britain , i know as i used to work in engineering making switch gear for trident submarines ,my perticular company moved to a third world country were they woek for a pitance , ive heard now they are coming back ime not surprised .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Wey hey! That's the first time you've answered the question that was asked you!
> 
> Well done.


 a well done of danny ! pardon me while i kneel down and self flagalate .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Define "indiginous" population.


 well i can only define it as i have before , the celtic races ie welsh irish and scots and then the english going back at least ten generations , hows that ?


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well i can only define it as i have before , the celtic races ie welsh irish and scots and then the english going back at least ten generations , hows that ?


 
The Irish are made up of a myriad of different influences (as I'm sure the rest of the "races" you mention are).

And just a reminder, The Republic of Ireland isn't part of your country.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 15, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> And just a reminder, The Republic of Ireland isn't part of your country.


 
It  is a part of British history and as much as the British have had an effect (to put it mildly) on Ireland, the Irish have also had a huge effect on Britain.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It is a part of British history and as much as the British have had an effect (to put it mildly) on Ireland, the Irish have also had a huge effect on Britain.


  I won't quibble with that but are we part of the idigenous people of Britain, as this faker claims?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> a well done of danny ! pardon me while i kneel down and self fellate .


*corrected for you*


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 16, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I won't quibble with that but are we part of the idigenous people of Britain, as this faker claims?


 
I don't believe in the existance of "the indigenous people of Britain" any more than I believe in the idigenous people of any country. We are all immigrants or the decendants of imigrants.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> *corrected for you*


 
How very feeble.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> How very feeble.


should be your tagline


----------



## john cooper (Mar 16, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> The Irish are made up of a myriad of different influences (as I'm sure the rest of the "races" you mention are).
> 
> And just a reminder, The Republic of Ireland isn't part of your country.


 the south never entered my train of thought .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 16, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It is a part of British history and as much as the British have had an effect (to put it mildly) on Ireland, the Irish have also had a huge effect on Britain.


 the irish never had a huge effect on the uk , i suggest you read up on the history between the two islands .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> *corrected for you*


 i will treat this with usual response yaaaaaaaaaawn !!


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the irish never had a huge effect on the uk , i suggest you read up on the history between the two islands .


 
I suggest you check out your history books again. Scottish history is redolent with Irish inspiration, and then we haven't even mentioned Liverpool yet.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the irish never had a huge effect on the uk , i suggest you read up on the history between the two islands .


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> the irish never had a huge effect on the uk , i suggest you read up on the history between the two islands .


 
I suggest otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_migration_to_Great_Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relations

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Men-Who-Built-Britain-History/dp/0863278299

You utter fake.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 19, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I suggest you check out your history books again. Scottish history is redolent with Irish inspiration, and then we haven't even mentioned Liverpool yet.


 yes of coarse liverpool why didnt i think of that


----------



## john cooper (Mar 19, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> I suggest otherwise.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_migration_to_Great_Britain
> 
> ...


 ok i will browse


----------



## john cooper (Mar 23, 2012)

these people are responsible for a multi racial , great britain soon to be england , and americaand it didnt work !!


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 23, 2012)

Which "America" do you refer to? Central? South? North?

If North; do you believe it was a mistake for the Native Americans to let the immigrants in?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> these people are responsible for a multi racial , great britain soon to be england , and americaView attachment 17630and it didnt work !!


 in what way is samantha cameron responsible for england, the united kingdom or america?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 23, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Which "America" do you refer to? Central? South? North?
> 
> If North; do you believe it was a mistake for the Native Americans to let the immigrants in?


 it was a fucking mistake for jc's parents to allow him to survive


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 23, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> in what way is samantha cameron responsible for england, the united kingdom or america?


 
It's all here http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/2012/mar/16/samantha-cameron-alessandra-rich-white-house


----------

