New Gypsy Camp?
I heard yesterday from an informed source that permission was being sought to add a new gypsy camp site to Sandy Lane Industrial Estate in Stourport, and indeed this morning the Shuttle pops up with a story.
As per usual they point you to Kidderminster Town Hall to view the plans rather than online by either direct link or at least giving the reference number. So here's application 10/0056.
As the location description is rather vague first port of call is the drawing. Here's the relevant section.
Here's the same rough view from Google Earth
Now some might say "hell it's not that large so what's the problem" well the problem is that this is an industrial estate, that means industrial processes etc. going on at all hours. So they have to live with the noise? Nope. Again from an informed source I'm told that a recent development around there has had the council force a nearby plant to restrict their hours of operation. Yep that's right a company that's been operating with no problem for over 20 years now has to restrict themselves because of some residents who have just moved into an area that had no previous residents.
If that holds true and this goes ahead that means all those companies around the area might find themselves in a similar situation.
The problem is the magic word "Gyspy" so any argument against it is likely to be countered with "racist" as if you're objecting to who is going to be using it rather than just saying it's a really stupid place to site it.
42 comments:
Ah yes, “discrimination”.
Yes, that's right. I belong to a group that used to be persecuted. I am therefore entitled to have everything that I want, because if anybody denies me, it's “discrimination”.
Damnit, the world is so broken…
Do you recall Lenny Henry's "Is it cos I'm black?" sketches?
Anyway less than 24 hours pass and the Shuttle already gets one comment that seems to want to lump protesters in with the, so-far, non-existent "stealing babies" crowd.
Non existent? Open your eyes, my "mad ranting friend.
Welcome CoB and thanks for the nice comment over at the Shuttle.
As I said there, the person who mentioned this first in the comments was yourself, if you want to go back yes the Shuttle used the "G" word, however, may I quote from the application as linked above.
"Change of use of land to the rear of Sai Wen for a gypsy caravan site"
Perhaps you should direct your ire towards Mr Wilson?
Unfortunately Flip has a blind side where WFBNP is concerned :-)
Hey! If WFBNP had made remarks in the vein that CoB was suggesting I'd have quoted the same bit as I did.
Any closer and you two will be kissing :-)
Jealous? :-P
I think the confusion *some* people might get is that I don't care about a person's handle just what they've written. I also try to remember people (included myself) forget some types of punctuation and smiley-captions for the humour-impaired.
So for WFBNP's 'you don't need to give a reason' I added an ! and for your hedgehogs I added a :-P given the way the topic was heading at that point. Do that and there's nothing to be upset about unless the next comment makes it explicit that they didn't forget such additions.
At which point feel my wrath ;-)
Well you should care about someone's handle. WFBNP wants to be taken seriously and be accepted by the mainstream. I am shocked by his sensitivity to abuse and his bafflement to why people keep bringing up the BNP 'just because it's in my name'. This incredibly unintelligent man wants to portray the BNP as 'normal' instead of the racist party that spreads hatred and division that it is. By cosying up to him you are making him and others think these views are palatable by society. He has already won over God's policeman Roy Keys. The BNP evolved from British Nazi parties; the Nazis exterminated thousands of gypsies. To laugh and joke with such a representative on such a subject is baffling to say the least. Nice photos by the way.
The BNP holds views that are abhorrent to me. If WFBNP voices such opinions I will argue with him.
I don't think attacking him and his other views simply because of his handle is a valid action. Either he will see everyone on the forums as 'oppressors' which may bolster his resolve, or he'll withdraw and seek out forums that reinforce his viewpoint.
You argue that he's trying to demonstrate that the BNP are normal; I'm enough of a realist to understand that they're simply an extreme reaction from a 'normal' evolutionary impulse.
You find it baffling that I would laugh and joke with such a person, I think it a better action then shunning him or arguing against everything he says.
Now I realise WFBNP may be reading this and thinking I'm a manipulative bar steward; I'm not.
I treat your comments in the same way as I treat everyone else's. I'll correct factual errors and affirmations not completely backed by evidence; I'll try to keep things on-topic and I'll respond as carefully as I can to outright provocation. I'll also back views that I agree with regardless of whom they originate with.
Herein lies the outcome of my last paragraph. We're not holding a discussion about what someone has said, but who said it.
Who said it can be just as important as what has been said. If Tony Blair pontificated about honesty in Parliament or Thatcher about promoting Unions in Britain then quite rightly the subject matter and the discussion of it would be effected by who was saying it.
In that context who said it only matters when used to compare words or actions previously. Are they consistent or not?
Who says what is only important if they have an acknowledged point of view and again is used to spot contradiction; as well, as in this case, bias.
You wouldn't expect ASH to publicise anything that showed passive smoking wasn't harmful while at the same time I'm sure anything that says it is harmful would be given the widest possible coverage.
Which states a precident that it does matter who said something, whether it is consistency or a whole host of other things. With WFBNP there will always be something he has said previously. He has said racist things in the past so that has a bareing on what he has to say about gypsies or travellers. Whether you like it or not there are consequences from 'who' is saying something and how you engage with them. With hindsight I don't think anyone would have been 'objective' about engaging with Hitler or Stalin.
"Which states a precident that it does matter who said something" But only in terms of what they're saying/doing now.
If someone says something inflammatory in the past then issues a neutral statement in the future on the same topic, what purpose does it serve to jump down their throats? If it were a complete turn-about, yes query it.
Take eugenics - all the rage in the early 20th Century and then dropped like a stone and never mentioned again; why? Did the experiments prove incorrect, the evidence falsified? Nope it got associated with the Nazis.
By the measure you seem to espouse any talk of such should instantly be quashed by bringing up the fact that Hitler supported it.
You have made the mistake of thinking I am espousing quashing what someone has to say. I am not saying WFBNP hasn't got the right to free speech, I am saying the way right minded people respond to something that has been said should take into account who said it as it has consequences. Your example of eugenics is a good one, as it was associated with Hitler it was abandoned which was obviously a good thing which proves my point. It sounds like you think it was a bad thing, no wonder you have a soft spot for WFBNP!
No, no, I've never thought that you would want to stop someone from speaking. Likewise I've already agreed that who says something is important, but in specific circumstances.
It would be like Tony Blair giving a speech on trade deficit and having a Iraq-war activist using every pause to shout "Murderer" at him; it doesn't help and could actually turn sympathy against the activist.
I acknowledge that eugenics had its faults both scientifically and ethically. What I think is a bad thing is that it didn't stop because of either of these; it stopped due to its associations.
Stating that as it was associated with Hitler therefore abandonment was a good thing is as logical as saying we should disband the Boy Scouts as Hitler was associated with Youth Movements, or that we should stop painting as Hitler was a painter.
I think we're going off the boil a bit here. The Tony Blair analogy is a good one but not the boy scout one. Eugenics wasn't just abandoned through association with Hitler but from the fact that he put it into practice. Boy scouts and painting carried on unharmed - people can see the difference. The fact is that in the 1930's a policy of hostility rather than objectivity would undoubtedly have been the best policy against Hitler. The same applies to the BNP and the internet today.
But other countries put it into practice too. As for the Scouts and painting, yes people could see the difference, what I was querying was the logic you seemed to display which looked to me like:
Hitler endorsed eugenics,
Hitler was evil,
Therefore eugenics is evil.
which is the same sort of logic as:
Cats have four legs,
Dogs have four legs,
Therefore cats are dogs.
and could equally apply to the Scouts etc.
As for hostility being the better option, you're looking at this with hindsight. For all we know starting off being hostile might have galvanised Germany into a direct response against us.
You are missing the point badly here Flip. I have just said "Eugenics wasn't just abandoned through association with Hitler but from the fact that he put it into practice." Therefore we could see it was wrong through our own eyes. Which scuppers your analogy. Yes other countries put it into practice aswell but the association with Hitler killed it in those countries. You have also made an assumption, understandably in Britain, that when talking about action against Hitler I was talking about action from us,the British. I actually meant from his German compatriots, but I didn't make this clear so my fault.
"Yes other countries put it into practice aswell but the association with Hitler killed it in those countries" but as I said my problem with that is that it wasn't abandoned for scientific reasons, but simply due to the association. That's where the faulty logic appears.
Yes I took the British side, but what I said could apply to the Germans too. Hostility might have just set things off sooner and more bloodier, but that's a what-if game.
With pro-active hostility towards a political party with views you (and I disagree) with why don't we just change our name to McCarthy and have done with it?
I think we're going round in circles but i'll repeat myself anyway. Eugenics wasn't abandoned just through association but through the fact that we saw through our own eyes what the consequences were. The Nazis successfully pulled the wool over people's eyes that they were no longer a beirkeller brawling party but a sophisticated democratic outfit. If people hadn't rolled out the red carpet for them they may never have been successful. This was, originally, my point - this is exactly what the BNP are doing and you're rolling out the red carpet. As for McCarthy this is again disingenous as I'm not saying they shouldn't have freedom of speech or should lose their jobs,etc as McCarthy did with the reds.
"we saw through our own eyes what the consequences were"
But that's like saying we should ban the sale of kitchen knives because some people abuse them. I could also start on drug use. Do you understand you're applying eugenics the way Hitler used it to eugenics as a entirety.
I mentioned McCarthy as that's the extreme road that could be taken once you start applying hostility to a group regardless of what they're actually doing; again it doesn't help.
The allusion you make is that the BNP are trying to turn themselves into a sophisticated democratic outfit, but to an extent that only works when they're paired against a baying mob spitting at them.
Seriously watch a suited BNP member walking along with a rag-tag batch of demonstrators yelling, screaming, and throwing things and ask what point these demonstrators are making?
At which point we've returned to my original point.
That's another false analogy. I am applying eugenics as an entirety. Hostility to the BNP isn't regardless of what they are doing it is to what they ARE doing which is sowing division and hate which you cannot get around. Good people yelling abuse at besuited BNP thugs may not be the best response (and by hostility I don't necessarily mean this kind of behaviour) but it isn't as bad as holding your hand out to them, welcoming them in and making their views acceptable to society - it is this that turns them into a sophisticated democratic outfit.
So what's your position on holding out a hand, welcoming them in, then giving them a nice cup of tea and saying "You do realise your politics are despicable?" when they start proselytizing?
It's been done. It doesn't work. Very few people change there mind over civilised debate least of all those with extreme views. Invite them in (not welcome them in), don't give them a cup of tea, come down hard on them, don't shake their hand on the way out. No one's going to change their mind but it stops racism and bigotry becoming acceptable currency.
Perhaps I'm just an optimist?
Just not indignant enough about the damage that nationalism/racism can do/has done throughout history :-) One final point - i've just read a letter in the Shuttle from a BNP organiser called Jeremy about litter. This is exactly the kind of stunt that gets people like Roy Keys on side. Now we all object to litter so taking the totally objective viewpoint and ignoring who said it we could all queue up to backslap Jeremy. The consequence is that Roy and people like him are seduced into thinking this is a respectable outfit, ignorant to the fact that litter is probably never discussed at BNP meetings. A negative/hostile response to Jeremy is imperative to highlight this even though we may agree with him over litter. Well i'm off to London for the weekend and may not get near a computer so as DaTa would say Toodlepip!
Ah yes I can picture the meeting now.
"So Jeremy how did the letter on littering go?"
"Well we got some positive response and support on that"
"Excellent so do you think we can count on those people to also support our main policies on kicking out every foreigner in the country?
"Well I don't see why not if they're backing us on this it makes sense to back us on everything else"
or perhaps
"So Jeremy how did the letter on littering go?"
"Well it seems most people were more interested in attacking me and the party"
"Typical it's this type of knee-jerk reaction that lowers the tone of debate. It's a persecution we must stand strong against"
"Perhaps I should write a letter complaining about this to the Shuttle?"
"An excellent suggestion"
Perhaps I should add my own comment in the style of harryurz
"This is just typical thinking by the BNP to endorse more jackbooted officials prowling around and spying on our every action. Perhaps we should make offenders where some sort of symbol on their clothing when they're out so we can better keep an eye on them?"
There that'd tell him.
Anyway have fun in London and remember to be careful what you point a camera at.
Well I feel I have to reply to your post as it appears to knock my argument for six, but for one thing - you have your facts wrong. The BNP deny that they are going to kick every foreigner out of the country. What they intend to do is offer every 'foreigner' a chance of repatriation (lucky them). Previously you had to look in the small print to see what would happen if the foreigner declined the offer(repatriation anyway). Now I think they have covered it up further. So anyone attracted to BNP policies on littering and law and order asking a little concernedly about their policies on foreigners gets the lie of voluntary repatriation. Next we get other policies on foreigners - expulsion of illegal immigrants, the majority of people I know would support that. Then expulsion of assylum seekers, again the majority would support that but for some would only admit in private. Then it's repatriation of foreigners who commit crime, again majority in favour. So once you've established yourself, courtesy of the red carpet brigade, as a respectable party it's surprising how attractive BNP policies are to a lot of people - as long as its kept respectable (saying "I don't like blacks" is not acceptable; saying "i'm not racist but I don't like blacks" is respectable for some reason). A hostile reception to the BNP reminds one of the most politically apathetic countries in the West that maybe the BNP's 'respectability' is a red herring. You may have seen Geert Wilders in the news, he could be next Dutch PM, imagine the fire that that will put in the belly of the BNP. While Nick Griffin won't become PM here the more success the BNP have the more racism and division we will have on the streets.
But in that case you expose the lie.
What I'm saying is that if you rant and rage when the BNP talk about litter collection, it just becomes white noise when you rant and rage against the lies they tell.
this is what I mean.
Just a few points about the article first. If the evidence hadn't been ignored what difference would it have made? Not a lot, future evidence that smoking kills didn't have a great deal of effect so a small paper from undesirables from an even earlier age would prob have gone unnoticed. People have only begun to stop smoking through good old state intervention like putting the price up and banning smoking in pubs. Secondly this was prob overlooked due to the lack of interest in the subject. Where information from undesirables was deemed useful it was taken i.e. top Nazi scientists being denied justice and being whisked to live in USA in return for working on such things as rocket science and atomic energy. So can this article have any use to us? Not really as the BNP are not likely to provide any scientific (or any other)research for us. But talking about whether we ignore results from people we don't trust is taking us away from the original point of not cosying up to the BNP. Fair enough to not rant and rave over stuff such as littering but cosying up has a worse effect. Talking to the plumber only yesterday we somehow got onto immigration and as you can guess he came out with the usual. He was obviously used to everyone agreeing with him but as I didn't really respond he quickly sanitised it by saying 'err.. that makes me sound rather nasty' and then something about his old man being Irish. He's a nice bloke but the only thing that prob stops him voting BNP is the vague suspicion that it's not quite respectable. Cosying up makes them respectable. I doubt whether he's interested in the lie being exposed as indeed aren't a sizeable percentage who would be quite happy to turn a blind eye to foreigners being deported. It doesn't have to be a majority voting for the BNP for them to do untold damage to this country.
Well now we're running into the Question Time argument and the results thereof.
Let them on and you're "cosying" up to them, don't let them on and you're denying their views, let them on and let people ask difficult questions and it's a 'stitch-up'.
So your plumber made some immigration points and quickly retracted them, does this mean you're not going to hire him in future? Next time he mentions buying some part are you going to make a comment about how surprised you are to find him buying foreign components? If he tells a completely non-racist/immigration joke that you find funny are you going to resist laughing?
Doesn't that mean you'd be cosying up to him and his views?
I think you're just waffling for the sake of it now Flip. 'Cosying up' is welcoming an undesirable and giving them an easy ride. For example not just letting a Wahabbist Muslim rabble rouser preach in a jail full of disaffected Muslims but giving him the red carpet treatment as well. With regard to my plumber as I said he's a nice bloke and i'll hire him again. His immigration remarks were no worse than those of the majority and fell short of the actual considered race hate of someone like WFBNP. He's not the brightest bloke but I admit if he'd gone as far as the BNP I wouldn't be hiring him again (his cheque would have bounced and he'd have had a flat tyre to contend with). As regards cosying up to him if I laughed at his jokes (if he were more extreme) the scenario is not really the same as it's not on a public platform discussing politics.
At what point have we discussed politics on a public platform? I recall economics, climate change, and planning.
If WFBNP had popped up to state that the economy of this country would be better without immigration I would counter that if someone hadn't already done so.
I'm still confused as to why you think I'm giving the red-carpet treatment to anyone.
I'm not going to bother trawling back over the blog posts but any discussion with someone representing the BNP is political. Racist statements about Muslims, statements about white people being the indigenous people of this country and defending racist attacks on foreign children all have political consequences. There is politics behind economics and the debate over global warming. As for the red carpet treatment apart from a few back slapping episodes on the letters page I have a hazy recollection of you defending the BNP against a fantastically passionate attack by Lilly Jordan last year sometime. Although I wasn't convinced by all her arguments I was even less convinced by yours. Taking the BNP's side there will just have brought them further into the mainstream. This is what the BNP want and you were providing it.
But again that's like saying any discussion with Tony Blair is political.
"white people being the indigenous people of this country"
Um that's true though. The original inhabitants were white, and the current ethic population is 92% white.
As for Lily Jordan as I recall that was either the 'How dare the Shuttle accept advertising from the BNP' or 'The BNP shouldn't have freedom of speech' and the slippery slope of censorship.
Again I'm accused of defending the BNP, I'm defending their rights and any arguments they produce that are accurate that others dismiss. If, no, when they're wrong I'll happily attack them if arguments I'd produce don't simply echo those already made.
Anyway is selective memory at work here? I distinctly recall asking WFBNP if his party would be happy with other countries kicking out all the British and repatriating them back to the UK. The response was spluttery.
I'm not going through another laboured discussion on the indigenous people of Britain! The last one was far too painful. Save to say you don't know that they were white and WFBNP's suggestion that 'white people are the indigenous people of Britain' would mean any white person from France, Brazil or anywhere would have the right to live here. That's by the by. As regards Lily Jordan you sided with the BNP in saying they weren't fascists on DaTa's "I'm not racist, a 70 million population will be reached in no time". I've just read it through and it's quite a good debate actually. Lily Jordan's excellent and passionate attack against WFBNP was disgracefully almost derailed by yours & Walkerno5's intervention over semantics. Fortunately she recovered enough to wipe the floor with all three of you :-) Some people get passionate about Jon Venables, others about animal cruelty and some people even about pot holes (cough). The fact is that the BNP is more dangerous than all these put together but to you it is simply just something you don't agree with, a theoretical problem to be grappled with without any real consequence. So that's were we'll have to agree to disagree; your concern over the primacy of the written word and my concern over stopping an evil.
Just re-read what I'd written there, and it matches up to what I'm writing here.
I think our intentions are the same we just disagree over methods.
We'll leave it at that then, this has gone on for far too long already! Have a good weekend ;-)
Well we'll see how the Bratii behave; how was London? Obviously didn't get arrested for taken pictures for terrorists ;-)
London was ok, I'm a bit old for it now - it's a young persons city! What it did make me realise is that if the BNP got into power the engine of the British economy would disintegrate overnight 8)
Post a Comment