The Rise of the Far Right

meltonblue said:
I do, used to be one of our favourite pubs, you mean Nether Broughton, near Old Dalby? It got converted into a house a few years ago annoyingly, I used to drive past it every day.

There’s a pub in Upper Broughton called the Tap and Run that’s owned by Stuart Broad. It burned down a few years ago, they rebuilt it and now it’s got “the second innings” on the sign. Every time I drive past it, I think he missed a trick and should have called it “The Ashes”!
Click to expand...
Yes Broad’s been looking at getting into pubs and restaurants for a while. I know for a fact he was sniffing around the Larwood and Voce in West Bridgford a few years back.

Presumably you’ll know The Martins in Colston Bassett?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Yes Broad’s been looking at getting into pubs and restaurants for a while. I know for a fact he was sniffing around the Larwood and Voce in West Bridgford a few years back.

Presumably you’ll know The Martins in Colston Bassett?
Click to expand...

Think Chris Broad owned the pub in Shelford too, which is the next village to me. Spent plenty of time in the Larwood too!

Yes, was there a month ago :) The vale has some lovely pubs, unfortunately lost a few too. If you’re in this neck of the woods any time soon, Chequers at Woolsthorpe is my current favourite.
 
meltonblue said:
Think Chris Broad owned the pub in Shelford too, which is the next village to me. Spent plenty of time in the Larwood too!

Yes, was there a month ago :) The vale has some lovely pubs, unfortunately lost a few too. If you’re in this neck of the woods any time soon, Chequers at Woolsthorpe is my current favourite.
Click to expand...
Know the pub very well. It used to have a French chef called Alain in the ‘90s. Went to Le Mans with him once. He used to cook with a fag in his gob! There’s also the Dirty Duck in Woolsthorpe too.

Sone good boozers round there. Are both pubs in Redmile still open?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Know the pub very well. It used to have a French chef called Alain in the ‘90s. Went to Le Mans with him once. He used to cook with a fag in his gob! There’s also the Dirty Duck too.

Sone good boozers round there. Are both pubs in Redmile still open?
Click to expand...

Its the one pub my elderly parents still want to go out to, it’s got all the old menus up on the wall still from when you used to go.

Yes it’s just called the Duck now, went there last weekend as there’s a house on the canal right by it that we were tempted to put an offer in for, our next move is definitely going to be into the vale.

The Windmill is still open, the Peacock is houses now. I’ve not been to the Windmill in years but someone was raving about it to me the other day.
 
meltonblue said:
Its the one pub my elderly parents still want to go out to, it’s got all the old menus up on the wall still from when you used to go.

Yes it’s just called the Duck now, went there last weekend as there’s a house on the canal right by it that we were tempted to put an offer in for, our next move is definitely going to be into the vale.

The Windmill is still open, the Peacock is houses now. I’ve not been to the Windmill in years but someone was raving about it to me the other day.
Click to expand...
The Windmill ebbs and flows. It has for the last 40 years.

The Peacock was generally considered to be the better for food whilst it was open.
 
richardtheref said:
If you do a Google search for "Crook stabbing flags" there is a link to footage posted by the great man himself, Darren Grimes
Click to expand...
Even nobhead Grimes doesn’t call it a stabbing. Sounds like he nicked himself on her knife whilst trying to stop her removing the banner, although the most of the video just shows her stood there with him waving his arms around and shouting after a 2 second scuffle. No wonder it didn’t make the news.
 
The perfect fumble said:
Not really.

Don't get hung up on the language, this act was not anti-Semitic, words like deplorables and worse were frequently used to describe the great unwashed in Edwardian England, this was a class based society not a racial one.

Race was not a factor in this legislation, Jews weren't even classified as an ethnic group in 1905, they weren't classed as an ethnicity in the UK until the early 1980s, a classification that still raises eyebrows in some left wing circles today.

It's clear the Act was put in place to address a very specific problem that actually existed in London, Manchester and elsewhere, not even its critics in Parliament disputed that. The fear mongering of Robinson and Farage is based on lies, but the MP who proposed this was talking about real life implications for his East End constituency.

Did antisemitism exist in Edwardian England? Of course, but the Jews coming to England were escaping pogroms not arriving for more of the same.

And it's clear the Act was not a race act, it was a means test, they only interviewed those who had travelled steerage to this country. In principle, if not in practice, if you had the means you were in, if you didn't you weren't. The UK was not a welfare state in 1905, the state had very little obligation regarding the well being of its poorer citizens and none for the world's poor, so all it was doing was applying the same criteria to those that wanted to come here as it did to it's own citizens, because, as was stated in the radio documentary, if you dump poor immigrants in an existing poor area with no safety net it has very real economic consequences for the people already living there.

But what really struck me was three things.

It failed, most folk got in and the means test was clearly not very rigorously applied. The Liberals opposed this Tory bill in 1905, but they won the election that very same year with a healthy majority and yet they did not repeal it.

And I think this is the important bit, it enshrined in law that those fleeing very real persecution had a right by dint of that persecution to settle here. that was a radical leap for the Edwardians, I'd have to do a bit of research but outside of the British Empire and the USA, I'm not so sure that was the case in too many other places.

And it didn't last. In 1914 a new act was brought in as a consequence of a war where ethno-nationalism was very much a driver, far more so than anything we've ever experienced in liberal England, then and now.
Click to expand...
Even AI couldn't be that undiscerning. If it wasn't for the pauper Jews coming from eastern Europe and Russia, there would have been no pressure for the Alien Act.

Churchill; the bill would "appeal to insular prejudice against foreigners, to racial prejudice against Jews, and to labour prejudice against competition"; he preferred "the old tolerant and generous practice of free entry and asylum to which this country has so long adhered and from which it has so greatly gained".

No "welfare state" but one allegation was that the Jews worked long hours for low pay, and the "indigenous" population ended up "on the parish rate" or in the workhouse.

Some of the stuff would fit well with your "ethno nationalism" / keeping themselves to themselves /not integrating thesis. "...living in ghettoes and refusing to intermarry..." / "The rich Jew who has done his best to besmirch the fair name of England and to corrupt the sweetness of our national life and character". (And that was from socialists.)
 
Vic said:
Even AI couldn't be that undiscerning. If it wasn't for the pauper Jews coming from eastern Europe and Russia, there would have been no pressure for the Alien Act.

Churchill; the bill would "appeal to insular prejudice against foreigners, to racial prejudice against Jews, and to labour prejudice against competition"; he preferred "the old tolerant and generous practice of free entry and asylum to which this country has so long adhered and from which it has so greatly gained".

No "welfare state" but one allegation was that the Jews worked long hours for low pay, and the "indigenous" population ended up "on the parish rate" or in the workhouse.

Some of the stuff would fit well with your "ethno nationalism" / keeping themselves to themselves /not integrating thesis. "...living in ghettoes and refusing to intermarry..." / "The rich Jew who has done his best to besmirch the fair name of England and to corrupt the sweetness of our national life and character". (And that was from socialists.)
Click to expand...

No "welfare state" but one allegation was that the Jews worked long hours for low pay, and the "indigenous" population ended up "on the parish rate" or in the workhouse.

The Jews did indeed work long hours for low pay, because in the absence of a welfare state, immigrants with little or no savings and no social network to fall back on, would, and indeed did undercut the pay of the indigenous workforce, if you have nothing you'll work for next to nothing, do I really have to tell you that?

As for Churchill we get the usual mixture of high minded liberal principle....

"appeal to insular prejudice against foreigners, to racial prejudice against Jews"

And couldn't give a fuck Tory hard nosed capitalism coupled with hatred for organised labour.....

"labour prejudice against competition"

So Churchill was admitting that obviously...

"Jews worked long hours for low pay,"

And he was all for it.

Because what he called...

"labour prejudice against competition"

Was labour's fight against poverty wages.

In other words immigrants did exert downward pressure on pay and Churchill loved it, which proves my point and the point made by the MP who proposed the Bill.

As for....

"...living in ghettoes and refusing to intermarry..."

And your issue with that is? Because that is precisely what they did.

As for...

"The rich Jew who has done his best to besmirch the fair name of England and to corrupt the sweetness of our national life and character".

Whataboutery, oh look! an Edwardian anti Semite! And a socialist hating on rich Jews of all things, like we've never seen that before! Fuck me! This Tory bill must've been anti-Semitic and racist then coz a Jew hating socialist said the above!

That link you posted about the 1905 bill used a quote from 1893 to prove how anti-Semitic the bill was! Square pegs, round hole.

Must do better..

B-
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
No "welfare state" but one allegation was that the Jews worked long hours for low pay, and the "indigenous" population ended up "on the parish rate" or in the workhouse.

The Jews did indeed work long hours for low pay, because in the absence of a welfare state, immigrants with little or no savings and no social network to fall back on, would, and indeed did undercut the pay of the indigenous workforce, if you have nothing you'll work for next to nothing, do I really have to tell you that?

As for Churchill we get the usual mixture of high minded liberal principle....

"appeal to insular prejudice against foreigners, to racial prejudice against Jews"

And couldn't give a fuck Tory hard nosed capitalism coupled with hatred for organised labour.....

"labour prejudice against competition"

So Churchill was admitting that obviously...

"Jews worked long hours for low pay,"

And he was all for it.

Because what he called...

"labour prejudice against competition"

Was labour's fight against poverty wages.

In other words immigrants did exert downward pressure on pay and Churchill loved it, which proves my point and the point made by the MP who proposed the Bill.

As for....

"...living in ghettoes and refusing to intermarry..."

And your issue with that is? Because that is precisely what they did.

As for...

"The rich Jew who has done his best to besmirch the fair name of England and to corrupt the sweetness of our national life and character".

Whataboutery, oh look! an Edwardian anti Semite! And a socialist hating on rich Jews of all things, like we've never seen that before! Fuck me! This Tory bill must've been anti-Semitic and racist then coz a Jew hating socialist said the above!

That link you posted about the 1905 bill used a quote from 1893 to prove how anti-Semitic the bill was! Square pegs, round hole.

Must do better..

B-
Click to expand...
I'm lost now. Isn't living in ghettoes and refusing to intermarry more or less what you said about the Muslims of Manningham?

Isn't your whole argument about immigrants being a threat to our national life and character?

I'm not sure what your point is about 1893 and 1905. These things fester. In 2014 Farage was getting UKIP elected to the European Parliament: ""It is completely pointless to talk about immigration figures and targets while we're members of the European Union, when we have a total open door to nearly half a billion people."
 
west didsblue said:
Even nobhead Grimes doesn’t call it a stabbing. Sounds like he nicked himself on her knife whilst trying to stop her removing the banner, although the most of the video just shows her stood there with him waving his arms around and shouting after a 2 second scuffle. No wonder it didn’t make the news.
Click to expand...
Well she was held overnight in a police cell and has been charged
 
Vic said:
I'm lost now. Isn't living in ghettoes and refusing to intermarry more or less what you said about the Muslims of Manningham?
Click to expand...

Yes, While some posters in here see no problem with ethnic ghettos for want of a better word and certainly the advocates for multiculturalism are all for it, I'm not, and that position has no bearing whatsoever on whether one is, or is not a racist either now or in 1905.

Vic said:
Isn't your whole argument about immigrants being a threat to our national life and character?
Click to expand...

No, without integration they play a limited part in our mainstream national life and character, they remain insular, hence the threat of radicalisation and what not, hence all that flag waving in West Yorkshire coz they see immigrants as a threat to our national identity, but what do they know? Coz too few whites around here ever venture into Manningham let alone know anyone from there and it's true in both directions. Of course advocates for multiculturalism celebrate this mixture of distinct cultures, while quietly admitting that there ain't much mixing going on, and that it is a direct result of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism celebrates the ghettoisation of Britain, the balkanisation of our country. So when governments sell multiculturalism they are portrayed by Robinson and Farage as a government for minorities over the majority indigenous population, and they are, but not for the reason the right bangs on about.

There is no indigenous population in multicultural Britain, no dominant culture, no white working class, no Anglo Saxon majority just a wonderful potpourri of distinct cultures, and none of that racist melting pot bollocks thank you very much!

So what happens when folk live separate parallel lives? You get this pathetic re-interpretation of our capital city and by extension our country....

You get the haters...

Londra-Unite-the-kingdom-e1757780929199.jpg


And the nice people...



I despise how the left redefine the meaning of words to peddle their utter bollocks, how they sell an entirely unreal world where all the nice people live, so obviously only bad people oppose it.

Vic said:
I'm not sure what your point is about 1893 and 1905. These things fester. In 2014 Farage was getting UKIP elected to the European Parliament: ""It is completely pointless to talk about immigration figures and targets while we're members of the European Union, when we have a total open door to nearly half a billion people."
Click to expand...

This is complete whataboutery, look at the act, why was it proposed, what did it do. Don't project your politics onto the Edwardians, see it for what was, don't start with your conclusion then grub around for crumbs to support it, coz that's exactly what you did and continue to do.
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
Yes, While some posters in here see no problem with ethnic ghettos for want of a better word and certainly the advocates for multiculturalism are all for it, I'm not, and that position has no bearing whatsoever on whether one is, or is not a racist either now or in 1905.



No, without integration they play little or no part in our national life and character, they remain insular, hence the threat of radicalisation and what not, hence all that flag waving in West Yorkshire coz they see immigrants as a threat to our national identity, but what do they know? Coz too few whites around here ever venture into Manningham let alone know anyone from there and it's true in both directions. Of course multiculturalism celebrates this mixture of distinct cultures, while quietly admitting that there ain't much mixing going on, and that it is a direct result of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism celebrates the ghettoisation of Britain, the balkanisation of our country. So when governments sell multiculturalism they are portrayed by Robinson and Farage as a government for minorities over the majority indigenous population, and they are, but not for the reason the right bangs on about.

There is no indigenous population in multicultural Britain, no dominant culture, no white working class, no Anglo Saxon majority just a wonderful potpourri of distinct cultures, and none of that racist melting pot bollocks thank you very much!

So what happens when folk live separate parallel lives? You get this pathetic interpretation of our capital and by extension our country....



I despise how the left redefine the meaning of words to sell their utter bollocks, how they sell an entirely unreal world that all the nice people live in, so obviously only bad people oppose it.



This is complete whataboutery, look at the act, why was it proposed, what did it do. Don't project your politics onto the Edwardians, see it for what was, don't start with your conclusion then grub around for crumbs to support it, coz that exactly what you did and continue to do.
Click to expand...

So how is a ward where 60% of its inhabitants are British a ghetto?

I suspect when you say people are "flag waving in West Yorkshire coz they see immigrants as a threat to our national identity" you're either (a) wrong or (b) confirming that the flag waving is not intended to "unite the kingdom". Does "too few whites" venturing into Manningham include those who live there, or the teachers teaching in schools with Asian children?

I don't know about the left redefining words. I think you're stuck in a word ghetto, where words can have only one interpretation - yours.

I really have no idea what scares you most. Ghettoes, or the London melting pot.

I appreciate that you could read the background to the Aliens Act as just people wanting to protect jobs, and that it was just coincidental that the main threat to "indigenous labour" was the arrival of pauper Jews, but the idea that there was no antisemitic background is cobblers (some of them were). Read what was being said at the time (by Jews and others) including one noble lord saying the "evil" was that they lived in one area.
 
Vic said:
I really have no idea what scares you most. Ghettoes, or the London melting pot.
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of the melting pot.

You need to do a bit of research on your terms...

The "melting pot" is a metaphor for assimilation, where distinct cultures blend into a single, uniform national culture, often losing their unique traditions. In contrast, "multiculturalism" is a model where multiple cultures coexist within a society while maintaining their distinct identities and characteristics, similar to a "salad bowl" where ingredients remain separate but contribute to the whole. The melting pot is criticized for promoting cultural dilution and the loss of minority traditions, while multiculturalism is seen by its proponents as a more inclusive approach that values diversity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top