Neil G

Could see some impressive dribbling from young Lennon. The defence will need to keep things tight at the back though.

Yeah, that's right, and I think he broke his arm rather than dislocating his shoulder. I seem to remember he was very philosophical about the whole thing, he just kept on saying how lucky he was to have played in a Wembley final and scored the winner. If it was me I'd have been absolutely fucking livid, as I've always thought the FA Cup final is a much bigger game.

That's like something from Colemanballs in Private Eye. I could easily imagine Bobby Robson or Kevin Keegan saying it. ;)

I'll be supporting England (albeit with far less enthusiasm than I used to), but the football purist in me would love to see a Brazil v Argentina final. If all the players you've listed are fit and on form, and if both sides overcome any nerves and just go for it, it has the potential to be simply the greatest World Cup match ever.

I remember listening to that on BBC Radio Norfolk. As with all local stations the commentators are usually pretty partisan in favour of the local side, but that time they barely uttered a word about Norwich and spent most of the game drooling over Xabi's passing. Think I'll have a look for that compilation.

Yep. Still fucking awesome.

Just got round to watching the clip. That is just fucking awesome, he makes it look utterly effortless. As impressive a display of footballing ability as any of the goal compilations from world superstars that have been posted on here recently. In fact, I think I'll have to watch it again.

Fair enough about writing him off. The part of your post that I've highlighted is the key for me, and the reason I've continued to reply to him. My questions to him about where he gets his views from are also valid for the others who voted yes, which is another reason why I've continued the exchange. Everything I've posted in my replies to atk can equally be addressed to them, whoever they may be.

atk: I remember reading about the Pakistani family a while back. It’s the Dar family, right? I hadn’t been keeping up to date with the story, but I’m sorry to hear they’ve been deported. This sort of thing happens regularly. Every week I read another story about people being deported, and their British friends, neighbours and colleagues expressing regret and incomprehension that the government is getting rid of such fine people who give so much to their community. The reason the government deports people like these is that it is panicked into being seen to be tough on immigration. It does this in a misguided attempt to satisfy people like yourself, when in my view it should be giving you more information about immigration and the benefits that it can bring. I’m not excusing the government’s actions, but your attitude to immigration is part of the reason those people were sent back to Pakistan to face who knows what fate. Sorry if that makes uncomfortable reading for you, but that’s my sincere opinion. When the family first came to the UK they weren’t the recognised members of your local community that you now have respect and sympathy for. They’d have simply carried the label ‘asylum seekers’ and attracted derision and suspicion from most native people, possibly including you. Did you know them when they first arrived in the UK? If you had, what would your feelings about them have been? Nothing about them as people changed between them arriving and leaving – they had just been given the chance to prove themselves able and willing to give something to this country. Now, have a think about the illegal immigrants that you’re vilifying and ask yourself whether, given the chance, they couldn’t prove to you that they’re every bit as deserving of your respect as the Pakistani family were. Ask yourself which position they’d rather be in – working shitty, low-paid and sometimes dangerous jobs to make ends meet while dodging the authorities, or earning a fair wage legally, paying taxes and being accepted by the society they live in. Ask yourself which position you’d rather be in if you had to flee the UK and seek refuge in another country, or if the UK economy was so fucked that you had to go abroad to provide a decent life for yourself and your family. You’ve asked us to put ourselves in your shoes over your concerns about the speedbumps and your kids. I’ve been trying to do that, and so to be fair have a few others on here, by explaining why we understand your reasons for voting BNP. So, how about returning the gesture? Put yourself in the shoes of an illegal immigrant and then tell me why you hate him. Give me a valid answer to that in your next post and prove to Paul that I’m not wasting my time discussing this with you.

I don’t tolerate the doctrine, and I take great exception to any suggestion that I do. It’s evil and destructive and the antithesis of everything I believe in, and I’ll do everything in my power to see that it never prevails in this country. That’s why I try to understand the people that are seduced by it, so that I can engage them and make some attempt to change their views. At no point have I tried to excuse voting BNP. This question is an almost exact parallel of the terrorism debate which crops up on here regularly. The only way to defeat terrorism is to stop people from wanting to carry it out, and you can’t do that until you understand why they do it. That’s completely different from excusing it. Stu is probably the most vocal proponent of this view on here, and I’m broadly in agreement with him although we differ on some details. For my part I think the conflation of the concepts of understanding and justification is one of the most unedifying and damaging features of modern society, whether the subject is terrorism, crime, anti-social behaviour or voting for a racist party. That’s the attitude I’m trying to take, only with adults. I’d imagine that many people would be prepared to write off a lot of the kids you teach, saying that they’re bad ‘uns plains and simple and there’s no point in trying to change anything about them. It’s harder to change adults’ behaviour or views as both are more firmly set, but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible. As I’ve already said, I’ve seen people’s views on immigration soften when I’ve engaged them constructively on it. I can’t know whether atk will change any of his views as a result of this thread, as an internet forum is no substitute for face-to-face conversation with people where you can address points one by one as soon as they arise. I can only hope that he might take some of what he reads on here away with him, even if it doesn’t show in his posts. No, it wasn’t a lack of education. In a previous post I’ve said that I know intelligent, educated people who hold prejudices against immigrants and ethnic minorities, based on a lack of information and a propensity to accept stereotypes. Rather it was a lack of empathy. If the German people had viewed the Jews as human beings rather than animals or parasites, the Holocaust could never have happened. Which leads neatly on to... This is exactly what I’m trying to establish by engaging with him Paul. I want to understand why he says what he says, and more importantly I want him to understand why he says what he says. That’s why I’ve been asking him so many questions about where he gets his views from. His comments about the Pakistani family suggest that he is capable of recognising immigrants as human beings with dignity and worth. In that case he was able to see it for himself – that’s a first step. The next step is to try and get him to use imagination and reasoning to ask whether people he doesn’t see and knows less about might be every bit as decent as that Pakistani family, which I’ll do in my next post. Agreed. That was one of the points I was trying to make to atk last night. You’re right, apologies if I misrepresented you. I agree that BNP voters are prejudiced. Virtually all human beings have prejudices about some group or other. Usually these prejudices are mild and harmless, sometimes they’re heavier and more damaging. In every case though they’re born of a lack of understanding of, and meaningful contact with, the group who are the subject of prejudice. However I think it’s a mistake to assume that BNP voters are actually fully aware of the party’s policies. I would guess that many of them, when asked what they think the BNP would do about immigrants, would give a pretty vague answer along the lines of ‘get tough’, ‘sort them out’ or ‘stop giving them handouts’, rather than be able to name specific policies. Just a guess though, as they don’t have a big presence where I live and so I haven’t been subjected to their campaign literature or canvassing. I share your anger Paul. I just choose to channel it in a different way. I won’t try to persuade you or anyone else to engage with BNP voters, but I want you to understand why I and others choose to do so. Over the past few years I’ve volunteered for several charities that work with refugees and asylum seekers. I’ve met a lot of brave, compassionate and inspirational people who’ve been through hell in their own countries, then again trying to get here, and yet again trying to cope with the challenges they face to become accepted and integrated into British society. Throughout it all they’ve retained a humanity and a determination to make the best of their lives that would put most people in this country to shame. I too am angry that people like atk don’t seem to understand or empathise with people like the ones I’ve met. I’m angry that they are often unable or unwilling to see immigrants as human beings with exactly the same needs, desires and worries that they have. Above all I’m angry that they don’t appreciate how ridiculously lucky they are, how lucky we all are, to live in a free and prosperous country such as Britain. But my anger isn’t directed at people like atk in the first instance – it’s directed at those in positions of responsibility who could do so much to change his attitude but don’t. My anger is directed at the sections of the press who scorn the notion that free expression is something to be treasured and exercised responsibly, not something to be abused by profiting from fear and prejudice. And it’s directed of the politicians of all stripes who lack the backbone to counter the press’s lies and make the moral and practical case for immigration to the British people without shame or reservation. I want people like atk to take a look at the question of immigration from my point of view, and if I’m asking them to do that then I have an obligation to take a look at it from theirs. I can only get angry with BNP voters themselves if I’ve made my case to them and they refuse to consider it. If atk refuses to listen to anything I’ve got to say and to even think about the questions I’ve put to him, then there’s no point me continuing a dialogue with him as he’ll have confirmed your view of him. But I’ve seen too many people change their minds once they’ve been forced to confront their prejudices to write people like atk off without trying.

I said I didn't think you were racist, but having just defended you I can't let that one go. The skin colour test may not apply, but judging someone purely by their nationality is effectively the same. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt after your comments about the Pakistani family, and assume that you didn't think properly before you posted that. Do you hate all Kosovans, everywhere? If so, why? Another question to ask yourself and answer honestly. I know Kosovans who are hard-working respected members of their local communities in this country, and whose kids are settled and doing well at school. Just like the Pakistani guy. There are decent people in all races, nationalities and ethnic groups, just as there are wankers in all of them. I'm assuming you get that really. If not, I can only suggest that you heed your own advice to TT and get out into the real world.

YKI – I read Milgram’s book a few years ago, fascinating stuff and pretty fucking scary to boot. The experiments were actually about obedience rather than conformity though. The difference is that obedience involves an equal relationship between a superior and a subordinate, and is usually explicit (i.e. orders are given and followed), whereas conformity generally entails a relationship between equals, such as peer pressure in a group of friends, and is more implicit. The question I was asking, about why certain people are more likely to believe what they read in the papers and hear from friends and colleagues about immigration, is more a question of conformity than of obedience – you can’t actually order anyone to think in a particular way unless you’ve already brainwashed them. I wouldn’t say that Milgram’s experiments really apply to this question (although they would be very relevant if the BNP ever got into power). Conformity within a group of people similar to yourself is a very powerful way of subconsciously confirming both your identity and your security. In that sense it’s part of the herd instinct that all humans still possess to some degree or other. I would guess that conformity is a strong reason why many people instinctively accept rumours and half-truths they hear from friends in the office or down the pub. This applies especially when the people being talked about are perceived as being different by you and the rest of your group, and even more so if they have a negative stereotype attached to them (immigrants, chavs, Scousers for a lot of the country). Why challenge your peers and stick up for people that they’re suspicious of and dislike, when this will put you at odds with the rest of your group? Obviously not everyone conforms to the same extent though, and there must be psychological reasons why person X is less susceptible to certain types of external pressure than person Y. As I said before, I don’t accept that it’s simply a case of your IQ or your social status. It’s something in your character. What I was really looking for was to see if you or anyone else was aware of any scientific explanation for this – not how conformity works and why it happens at all, but why it affects different people to different degrees.

I don’t think you’re a racist atk – I haven’t thought that at any point during this thread. To me a racist is someone who thinks that people of other races are inherently inferior to them, and who judges all people purely by the colour of their skin. Your comments about your mate and about the Pakistani family prove to me that you’re capable of accepting people on their individual merits even when they’re of a different ethnicity, and therefore that you’re not a racist. I do however think you’re badly misinformed about a lot of issues regarding immigration, and that you believe a lot of lies that are spread by the press because they confirm your existing prejudices. For starters, you’ve repeated your belief that many immigrants come to the UK because we give them generous benefits. I can guarantee you that the people from Sangatte who came to the UK to claim asylum didn’t do it because of the benefits on offer. Have you had a think about how much money asylum seekers receive in benefits? If you don’t know, have a look on the web, or failing that take a guess. I’m not saying that everyone who came from Sangatte was genuinely in danger of persecution in their home countries. But whether they were or not, I’d argue that they chose the UK as their destination because they thought there was a better chance of getting work and making a life for themselves there than anywhere else in Europe. The British economy has been one of the strongest in Europe for the best part of a decade now, and as Hermes pointed out earlier, it’s easier to get a job and fit in in a foreign country if can you speak some of the lingo. Those who weren’t genuine refugees were using the asylum system as it’s the only way they could legally remain in the country for any length of time. Which brings us to illegal immigrants, who you say you hate. I can promise you that the vast majority of people who are here working illegally would prefer to be here legally – earning at least the minimum wage, paying taxes, having their rights as employees protected, and not having to worry about being deported at a moment’s notice. Wouldn’t you if you were in that position? So why do you think they do it? The answer is that for a lot of people it’s simply impossible to get work in the UK legally. Even so working here illegally offers many of them a better quality of life than in their own countries. A question for you. How would you feel if the government offered an amnesty to everyone who’s here working illegally – if they promised not to deport them, but instead to let them work and pay taxes? It’s not likely to happen any time soon, but in that hypothetical situation, would your hatred for those people remain? Which part of illegal immigration do you really hate – the illegal part, or the immigrant part? Of course there will be some immigrants who try to fleece the system and get benefits they’re not entitled to. But for every one that does that, I can show you twenty British people who do the same. This isn’t an immigration issue, it’s a benefits issue, and the system should be strengthened against frauds and freeloaders whether they’re British or foreign. It’s only an immigration issue if the percentage of immigrants that abuse the system is significantly higher than the percentage of Britons who do the same. If you’re going to make the subject of benefits for foreigners an immigration issue, you need to prove that that’s the case. Of course you want the government to spend your tax money properly and not waste it. But again, that’s only an immigration issue if immigration is a major contributor to the problem. I’ll repeat (or rephrase) another of my questions to you from my earlier post: what percentage of your tax bill do you think goes to support immigrants? Your post suggests to me that you believe the following: - People who come to this country should be welcomed if they’re prepared to work hard, support themselves, play by the rules and make a positive contribution to society and the economy - People who are only here to milk the system have no right to be in this country - People who come to this country should be expected to make an effort to fit into British society, but this needn’t be at the expense of their own cultural or national identity Fair comments? I agree with all of those. I honestly don’t think we’re that far apart on the basic principles of immigration. Where we’re miles apart is in our perception of the situation. I believe that the people covered by the first of those three points far outnumber those covered by the second, while your comments on this thread indicate that you believe the opposite – to such an extent, in fact, that you perceive immigration as a major problem and are prepared to vote for an extremist party which you think will remove the problem. As for illegal workers, I put it to you that the vast majority want to be in that first category but aren’t given the opportunity. In order to support themselves they have to break the law, which in your eyes puts them on a level with those in the second category. As I’ve already said, I can understand you voting BNP as a protest against what you see as the main parties’ failure to address a major problem. But if you’d actually want a BNP government, read their policies carefully and have another think about the questions I’ve asked you in this and the previous post. If you’re going to vote in a government that would take such a radical step as deporting all immigrants, you’ve got a responsibility to make sure that your reasons for doing so are sound.

I agree that the frustration and desperation that comes from social exclusion is definitely a factor, and no-one who hasn't experienced it has any right to dismiss its influence on people's views and actions. But I don't agree that working-class people who vote BNP do so because of a lack of intelligence. For me that’s just as big a generalisation as saying they’re mostly or completely racist. I know plenty of very intelligent people, some with university degrees, some who have well-paid and responsible jobs, who hold ill-informed and hostile views on immigration - views that they’ve clearly based on tabloid news reports, urban myths and the conventional ‘wisdom’. These people are less likely to vote BNP than people in deprived urban areas though, because they’re generally better off and have less of an axe to grind with society. It’s not a lack of intelligence, it’s a lack of curiosity, and it’s not determined by a person’s level of intellect or social group – not solely anyway. I don’t know how it is determined – how any two given people of similar social background and level of education can have such varying ability and/or willingness to look beyond headlines and rumour to find out the facts for themselves. Perhaps YKI or another psychology type can offer some explanation in layman’s terms.

This thread is a perfect microcosm of the current ‘debate’ on immigration in this country. Different issues get confused and conflated, sweeping generalisations are made, assertions are put forward without any facts to back them up, and people make no effort to understand why others hold different opinions from themselves. The temperature rises until people end up hurling abuse at each other, positions are hardened and the gaps between different people and groups grow wider. There’s no real harm done here, this is just an internet forum, but this sort of exchange is going on in communities up and down the country. Paul – I agree with half of your statement ‘fuck the BNP and fuck anyone who votes for them’. The BNP are a racist and fascist party, and any free election that returned a BNP government would be the last one in this country for a long time. However I don’t believe that most people who vote for them are racist. They are misinformed and often prejudiced, but they can change their minds when confronted with the facts. I know this because I’ve had friends and colleagues who’ve reconsidered their anti-immigration views once they’ve been asked to question where these views come from. Some of them had considered voting BNP as a protest. I’m not necessarily saying that anyone on this forum can be reached like that, but the very small sample of people on here aren’t automatically representative of all BNP voters nationwide. What do you think, say and do when you meet someone who believes Liverpool fans were responsible for Hillsborough? (Not just you Paul, anyone on here.) Do you write them off as a brainless cunt and have nothing further to do with them? Or do you make every effort to find out why they think what they think, and then present the facts to them and ask if it’s changed their mind? I go for the latter, and I take the same approach to people who are anti-immigration and even support the BNP. I want people who vote BNP to change their views and not vote for them, and I presume you do too. Saying ‘fuck them all’ doesn’t achieve this. atk – I’m not going to judge you or have a pop at you like others on here have been doing. I’m not going to try to persuade you not to vote BNP, as I’ve already agreed with you earlier in this thread that the three main parties don’t care about you. I’m not going to try and get you to accept that immigration is a good thing. I just want to find out where you get your opinions from and ask you whether you think the sources are reliable. A few pages back someone likened you to a S*n reader and you took offence. Why was that? I assume it’s because you don’t want to be compared to someone who believes lies and unfounded rumours, which caused and still cause a lot of hurt and damage, and then presents them to other people as fact so that more people believe them. Is that fair enough? Here are a couple of things you’ve presented as fact in this thread. Do you know how much money is available in benefits for immigrants, whether asylum seekers or otherwise? You’re stating it as fact that they receive generous state handouts, which is why they come here. Where have you got your information from? Is it definitely accurate? Do the sources have any kind of agenda which might mean they don’t present the full truth? If so, are there any other sources you can check which are more objective, or are at least approaching the subject from a different angle so that you can compare? Do you really believe that benefits are the main reason people from other countries choose the UK as their destination, whether they’re fleeing persecution or just seeking a better standard of living? If so, why? Have you thought about other reasons and tried to work out whether they might be more valid ones? You’ve also referred a couple of times to the fact that you're a taxpayer, and said that you and other taxpayers are being shafted. Does this mean that you think immigrants overall are a burden on the economy, and that if there were none you would either pay less taxes or could see more of your taxes spent on public services? Again, if you do think this, what information are you basing this view on? How reliable is it? On the speedbumps issue, you have every right to be fucked off with the council for not helping you out. Maybe the bloke you know who’s standing for the BNP will get it sorted if he's elected. But aside from that, do you know why the councillor who spoke to you off the record said what he said? Did he say it was official council policy to give preferential treatment to non-whites? How much did he know about this – had he been involved in any similar cases where he’d seen this preferential treatment in action? Did you follow up his answer, or did you just take his word for it? Also, which party was he from? The BNP aren’t the only party who have racist councillors. Could it just have been an uninformed, off-the-cuff comment based on prejudice? Lots of questions I know, but seriously – read them one by one, ask them to yourself and answer them honestly. If not to me and the rest of the forum, then at least to yourself. I'm sure you have other reasons why you vote BNP as well as the ones you've mentioned in this thread - other posters have spoken about different problems that can be linked to immigration. I can only respond to what you've written though. Like I said, I’m not having a go at you, and I don't mean to sound condescending. I just want to ask you what information you base your opinions on, and whether you’ve made every effort to check that it’s accurate and complete. I’d do the same with someone who blamed Liverpool fans for Hillsborough, and I hope you would too. If you wouldn’t, if instead you’d just tell them to fuck off and refuse to speak to them, then that’s really no different from Paul saying that all BNP voters are selfish racists and refusing to ask why they think what they think.

Brighton knocked us out two years in a row. In 83 (the year they were runners-up) it was 5th round, 2-1 at Anfield, and then 2-0 at the Goldstone in the 4th round the following season. I cried at the 83 result, it was my first season supporting Liverpool and I genuinely couldn't understand how that sort of thing could happen in football. Just shows how spoiled those of us who grew up following the Reds in that era were.

Terrahawks. In case you're not familiar: http://www.fab1.net/t-hawks/terrahawks.html (I'm not Phill by the way). Bloody alien invaders, coming over here, trying to take over our planet...

Rooney did ok in goal in that advert. I can imagine Sven's last desperate plea to Fergie: 'It's ok, I promise he won't play outfield. His foot won't be at risk if he stays in goal... please?'

I don't think total PR is the answer. You still need to have a constituency MP that you can go to about local issues. The best solution for me would be a combination of MPs elected within geographical constituencies, as happens now, and MPs elected from a list depending on their party's share of the vote nationally. Don't know what percentage of each would work best, the solution if there is one could only be found by trial and error over a long period. Coalition governments aren't such a bad idea, for years they were mocked in this country as a typically European fudge. It would improve the quality of politics if different parties were forced to work together occasionally instead of posturing and attacking each other all the time.

I used to think that, but I’ve changed my mind in recent years. I believe our current electoral system is one of the biggest reasons for the growth in support for the BNP. The main parties are focusing all their energies on winning the support of a small group of swing voters in a small number of marginal constituencies, who tend to be middle-class and affluent (Middle England in other words). Their concerns are totally different from those of working-class people in poor urban areas. As these areas are very often safe Labour seats, Labour takes them for granted and the Tories and Lib Dems don’t consider it worth their while contesting the seats, and so millions of working-class voters throughout the UK are effectively ignored by the main parties. This leaves room for the BNP to come in and claim to be fighting for their interests by portraying immigrants as the problem - all with the help of the tabloid press, who condemn the BNP at the same time as perpetuating the lies and fear that it thrives on. This piece goes into a bit more detail: http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/opus24888.html atk is right, the three main parties don’t care about people like him, they’re more concerned with looking after another group of people who are different to him. That group isn’t immigrants though, it’s wealthy middle-class British voters who live in swing seats. Our electoral system means that their vote is literally worth more than his, which is why the main parties don’t bother addressing his concerns (and I don’t mean about immigration, I mean about vital services such as education, housing etc). This wouldn't be the case with a more proportional system (and no, I'm not a Lib Dem before you ask).

When would you say the pre-dross era ended? I've been reading the FF pretty religiously for the last three years, but only started to venture onto the GF regularly about 18 months ago. Was it on there?

I agree, cross-referencing rules when it's done well. Sometimes not everyone gets it, which just adds to the amusement.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see it that way. It's a bit like saying that the mystique and magic of Shakespeare or da Vinci is diminished because you can still access their works. Great pieces of art should be preserved for future generations to enjoy and treasure, and classic forum threads are no exception. I agree that making it too formal might take something away from them though, so perhaps a whole section for them might not be the best idea. How about a simple series of links so that they can be located without using the search function and trawling through lots of threads? On that subject, what was the Pasta thread? I'm drawing a blank at the moment, but I'm sure I'll remember it when I read it. Anybody got a link?

Where are Palermo getting all this dough from? Uncle Jun, you know anything about this? You must have contacts in the old country, any chance you can put some muscle on this Zamparini guy?

Re-reading the threads about Istanbul and Olly the ‘fireman’ has made me very happy. Dave – any chance of putting a classic threads section on the website, where favourite threads as voted for by the forumites can be preserved for posterity? I know RAOTL has something similar. Sometimes it's difficult to find the thread you're looking for with the search function. It would be different from just having the threads as stickies on the FF, I guess they’d have to be locked so that they could be preserved in all their original glory. I've no idea how difficult it would be to do – sorry to suggest more work for you and Haje, but if there’s enough interest and it's not too much work then maybe it’s something to think about the next time you upgrade the site?