I read Ross Kemp's book "Gangs"
It was also filmed for "Ross Kemp on Gangs", an award winning series on Sky One. Anyone see it?
Quotes from the chapter on Moscow -
"Lot's of websites showed skinhead thugs who had obviously been trained to attack people they didn't like. One gang stood out from my trawl. It called itself The National Socialist Union (NSO)"
"One of the scary things about the gang was that while a few of it's members were from deprived backgrounds, most members held down reasonably well-paid jobs and trained to be neo-Nazis in their spare time."
"We should take neo Nazi gangs like the NSO seriously. Their members are swelling.
And too many people thought Hitler was a joke in the 1930's."
Neo Nazis also use 88, the numbers for the initial letters of the Nazi salute "Heil Hitler"
Why do people compare BNP too Hitler/Nazi ?
Hitler became chancellor of Germany by 1933 so not sure what the joke reference is about re 1930s. He was never seen as a joke maybe a threat ?
Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyway the link is Superfluous/ erroneous and seems to be stuck the fortuitous predictable dog mire that elicits from said source
Don't know, there are not many similarities - apart from the right wing thing but then New Labour has the same similarity
I had not heard that anyone thought Hitler "was a joke" in 1930 - it didn't come up in History at School anyway But if Ross Kemp said it, it must be trueHitler became chancellor of Germany by 1933 so not sure what the joke reference is about re 1930s. He was never seen as a joke maybe a threat ?
I am not sure if the BNP is good or bad for British Politics. what is happening to this country. With this "political correctness" etc I feel like I just want to move away from the the UK
Christmas lights have been renamed oh they are now "seasonal lights"
Nativity plays are rarely performed at schools anymore unless they are rewritten not to offend other religions. Can you imagine if we did this in other countries!
TB/BCG injections have been taken away from british kids unless you have African or Asian family connections. I have been fighting this for 2 years now and was told that it was because of the decrease in the disease yet they are innoculating all children under 1 years old. There are now 9 cases of TB within the Barnet borough.
Political correctness what a pile of poo!! who ever started this should be shot!
Right someone start a thread on political correctness!
I agree that political correctness has gone too far, but that's not the fault of people coming into this country. I have never heard anyone of a different religion or ethnic background saying they are offended by the celebration of Christmas. It's an idea from some ninny trying to get noticed in politics or local government ('I'll try to attract the minority voters by making a big politically correct noise'). The nativity is still celebrated in my son's school and every other local school. My smaller children had a nativity at nursery and the local playgroup also had the traditional nativity. I've heard of no attempts to thwart this. Parents are quite entitled to ask for their children to be exempt from religious teaching and events if they wish, regardless of their religion or background.
As for the TB injections, I don't see the link between a medical decision and political correctness...it's the response to a study into TB surely. It's found that children from some specific ethnic backgrounds are more open to infection that children of other ethnic backgrounds. You say it has been 'taken away from British kids' as if it will automatically be offered to anybody getting off an incoming boat, who doesn't have a British passport. That simply isn't true. It's not a policy to discriminate against British people.
Ok political correctness is probably not the right word here by I feel my daughter is being discriminated. Someone found an injection that can prevent TB - stoping another epidemic coming back and then its taken away. I feel that all children should be offered the heef test to see if they are immuned or not. I have even contact House of Commons etc but they say unless I am from an African or Asian family then I am not entitled to have my daughter tested. Maybe if they innoculated people as they come in then we would not have rising numbers of TB in this country but then I guess they will be infringing human rights
Again, it sounds like you're saying that the government is positively discriminating African and Asian people, by offering them an injection that they are refusing white British people. The simple fact is that the NHS has decided that, as the risk of infection is higher in those ethnic groups, they should still be immunised. It's not a case of treating ethnic minorities better to the detriment of 'British' kids...it's about a group more at risk.
Are we actually trying to blame outbreaks of illnesses on immigration?
I don't intend allowing people to stick needles of whatever innoculations they choose into me on entering other countries, so why should I want to insist that we do it to other people here?
I would, but usually to prevent me from catching a disease while I'm there though, rather than to prevent people catching something from me.
I'm glad you see what I'm saying though. It's not the case that those with certain ethnic backgrounds are getting preferential treatment. This is how the debate on immigration can become hysterical...people actually thinking it's somehow discriminating against white people for African/Asian people to get an immunisation due to their increased risk of contracting a certain disease. It can suddenly become a 'they get better health care' argument, when that's not true.
With regard to TB though, I thought it was still a monitored disease, so they have to track it and find the source of the outbreak? I'll need to look it up, but when there were a few cases on the south side of glasgow about 15 years ago, they traced it back to a particular pub and found that an old regular was the source. Scarlet fever is still monitored, so I can't imagine they leave TB to run amok (will take your word for it though and go nosey about).
Last edited by Tiger Feet; 14th-May-2008 at 09:38 AM.
Every innoculation / vaccination carries a risk. Every pound spent on one medical treatment means one pound less than on another.In some groups the risk from the disease is so small that the risk and expense of immunisation is not justified.
Sometimes experts do get things right.
As for the BNP - Every political party has one face for the voters, another for its backers, and yet another for its activists.
Was curious about this, so did a quick google and found the following explantion for the previous vaccination policy and the change in it:
Presumably the ethnic groups who are more at risk are so becuase they have either come here from a high-risk area for TB, or are more likely to have visitors from that area who could be infectious or visit there themselves. So I guess that it makes sense.Studies carried out by the British Medical Research Council in the 1950s showed that BCG, when given to teenage school children gave about 75% protection for 15 years.(1). From 1953 until July 2005 it was national policy to vaccinate all children aged 12-13. Thus in theory the entire population received protection from early teenage years through to about the age of 30. The reason for choosing that age range was because in the 1950s cases rates were highest in young adults. The limited length of time for which BCG appeared to be protective would therefore be maximal at the age when most people suffered from the disease. Secondly the form of tuberculosis which pre-teenage children suffer from (primary) is not usually infectious, whereas the form suffered by adults is infectious.
However as rates of tuberculosis in teenagers and young adults have declined reasons for discontinuing the policy of teenage vaccination have emerged. (2,3)
First it is no longer cost effective. The rates of disease in the group receiving protection are now so low that about 10,000 vaccinations are needed to prevent a single case (see below). This is to prevent diease which is usually relatively easy to treat in the age group 14-30.
Secondly the harm done in adverse effects from the vaccine, usually abscesses at the sight of injection, outweigh the preventive effect.
Guess that scar that I have on my left arm is a sort of generational marker then...
Because they both believe that anyone who is not "pure white" (Aryan) should be killed.
Therefore they are both racist - that's what they have in common.
Nazis are big in France, Germany, America, Canada, UK - they are more underground in the UK, but not now they have a political recognition at City Hall - we may see Skinhead thugs back on the streets of London again. (I definately remember them in the 70's/early 80's).
They hate the Muslims, and taking advantage of the hate against Muslims by George Bush and cronies to sneak in the back door politically.He was not seen as a threat.
Hitler became chancellor of Germany by 1933 so not sure what the joke reference is about re 1930s. He was never seen as a joke maybe a threat ?
Other governments including the British Government ignored Hitler's invasions and colonizing of Sudetland, Austria, Czecoslovakia.
This encouraged him to keep on invading.
It was only when he invaded Poland that Chamberlain reluctantly had to declare war on Germany.
Churchill had the foresight, but was accused of war-mongering.
The history books are written with hindsight.
See Beowulf's post below.
Last edited by Astro; 14th-May-2008 at 11:47 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks