Ukip posterboy suspended after claiming 'Miliband not British'

[SaltyLevels]

Ah so you do subscribe to the notion that "a dog born in a stable is not a horse".

Ah, the smileys.

I do subscribe the notion that if a dog is born in a stable and was a result of two dogs coupling, then it's going to be a dog, yes. The stable has nothing to do with it, it is a dog, and will always be a dog.

Anyway, as much fun as this has been, I am off out for lunch with my wife.

[sirja]

I'm confused: Did UKIP really have an immigrant in their broadcast complaining about how immigrants are costing jobs?

Well you don't really think a small point like that would stop a good racist?

[Ravello]

Ah so you do subscribe to the notion that "a dog born in a stable is not a horse".

Depends if the dog then spends it's life in a field pulling a plough

The whole idea of nationality is no longer quite so cut and dried. If someone happens to be born in this country by 'foreign' parents and then returns to foreign soil for their upbringing (and hence cultural identity) are they British? If not, what's the cut-off age for returning for them not to be considered British?

On the opposite side of the argument if they are born here, brought up here and are immersed in British culture how can they not be considered British?

[sasguru]

On the opposite side of the argument if they are born here, brought up here and are immersed in British culture how can they not be considered British?

You'd need to ask SaltyDick that question.
According to his logic no immigrant can be considered British, however many generations they have been here.
Of course given that logic, probably the Celts are the only real Brits, being the first humans (as far as is known) to populate these islands.
All the Vikings, Angles, Saxons etc are mere immigrants.

[Bunk]

Look, the argument was he was technically british, by location, not parents. I can't see how this is in anyway shape or form wrong.

His parents were Polish/Belgian Polish Jews. The came here as refugees, then were given naturalisation as a subject of the king.

If you can't make the distinction, that's fine. I can.

SueEllen, I am not getting into this argument. we are not, by our genes, jewish in our genealogical make up, not in any great part. as for the notion of our cultural identities being different, well I would say that was a gimmee.

It's ok to disagree.

You keep saying "technically British" as if that in some way diminishes how British he is. To the rest of us "technically British" is still British, therefore saying he's not British is completely factually wrong. So every time you say it's actually correct you're making an assumption that the rest of us don't agree with.

[sasguru]

You keep saying "technically British" as if that in some way diminishes how British he is. To the rest of us "technically British" is still British, therefore saying he's not British is completely factually wrong. So every time you say it's actually correct you're making an assumption that the rest of us don't agree with.

It's a racist argument since it relies on the dubious concept of race.
Biologists have always said that there is more variation within a so-called race (e.g. German) than between races, so the concept as a classificatory mechanism is suspect.
If you live in a multi-cultural society like London, that rings true , since one associates with people like oneself - however this is not defined on racial lines but on class, professional and educational lines.

[TheFaQQer]

You keep saying "technically British" as if that in some way diminishes how British he is. To the rest of us "technically British" is still British, therefore saying he's not British is completely factually wrong. So every time you say it's actually correct you're making an assumption that the rest of us don't agree with.

It's kind of like saying "technically, a certain poster is a massive cock". I don't think that biologically they have the appearance of a massive cock, but technically they are one by their actions.

We're both right, but technically that poster could be described as being a massive cock.

[sasguru]

It's kind of like saying "technically, a certain poster is a massive cock". I don't think that biologically they have the appearance of a massive cock, but technically they are one by their actions.

We're both right, but technically that poster could be described as being a massive cock.

What if a poster has a massive cock but isn't a massive cock?

[Mich the Tester]

What if a poster has a massive cock but isn't a massive cock?

Then he should encourage it to breed with a massive hen and enjoy a regular supply of massive eggs.

[northernladyuk]

What if a poster has a massive cock but isn't a massive cock?

The legendary Urugsas?