Tuesday, 3 November 2009


I’ve just watched a video from Youtube as featured on Scunnert Nation.
I think everyone should have a look. It’s what Mr Griffin was trying not to let us know when he attempted to appear like a reasonable and sensible politician (?!?) on his Question Time appearance.

The video is of Wembley High Street. The commentator a BNP member from South Wales, talking about how it is no longer his country, because there are a lot of Asian people walking about on the street. A good deal of the footage concentrates on an area right outside a mosque.

Apart from the colour of the people’s skin, what else do we see in the video? Well we see a lot of signs up warning you that the road has no markings and we see shops and bus stops and all the other stuff you’d expect to see in a busy part of the English capital.

What do we not see? Well loads of things obviously, but what I particularly noticed was that there was no one fighting, no one drunk, no one begging and no one vomiting in the gutter.

It just seemed like a normal, decent, not terribly unpleasant shopping area with lots of little shops.

The commentary, for the first part in English, is about how it’s not “our” country any more. (That’s not something I feel in particular because, in my view, it was never my country.) The second part, when our intrepid reporter gets out of the car is delivered in Welsh (with subtitles). Clearly he’s not so intrepid that he wants to make blatant racist remarks in English surrounded by people who can understand him. (Yes, that’s right, they may think that the immigrants don’t speak English, but they are not prepared to put it to the test.)

Now, the BNP may have some reasonable points to make about the failure of immigration policies of the London government, but when, as here, the commentary sinks to the level of talking about people going out in their pyjamas, the other points that they make become tainted with the ignorance that that kind of comment displays.

I urge you to go to Scunnert’s blog and watch the video.

PS. Our commentator makes several remarks about the iconic status of Wembley, and he notes that it is the home of British football. He maybe hasn’t heard of English Football, Scottish Football or even Welsh Football. Strange that. Another piece of crass ignorance!


  1. He clearly went at the wrong time to see the “aboriginal” English people. If he had gone back at night just after the pubs had chucked out he would have seen plenty aborigines, mooning, showing tits and knickers, fighting, staggering about, shouting, gesturing, puking and pissing.

  2. Yes Munguin, the England that he so much loves is just a few hours of boozing away.

  3. Tris said:
    " ... in my view, it was never my country." Mine either. The poor Welsh fellow seems to feel it was his though. That he objects to the colonization of his capital city by foreign cultures is surely a legitimate concern? Or are such feelings to be suppressed and not brought up in polite society?

    Perhaps he prefers an England(?)of: " ...aborigines, mooning, showing tits and knickers, fighting, staggering about, shouting, gesturing, puking and pissing." There's no accounting for taste.

  4. I suppose, Scunnert, that if a person feels that there is something wrong with people from other countries living in the place (s)he think of as his/her capital the (s)he has every right to say so.

    I find it pretty nauseating. It's hate for the sake of hate. People are people, there are good ones and bad and no nation, or colour or creed can claim exclusivity of either.

    I think of Scotland as my country, but not mine as of right to the exclusion of other people, English, Greenlanders, Somalis, et alii. I genuinely feel that we can welcome people here from wherever.

    I think that in England the immigration policy has gone too far. Some people say that Labour did this on purpose so that the immigrants would be poor and vote Labour. It's an interesting theory, but I doubt it. I know Labour is stupid, but THAT stupid? Besides Labour is now the party of the stinking rich. Only long term Brits who remember Labour from the 1940s could think otherwise. Why else make the sick work to help pay off the bankers' debts?

    I'm assuming that btw that Munguin used 'England' (and I repeated it in my answer), because the film was made in England. I don't think that there is anywhere in Scotland or Wales that such a film could have been made. Although heaven knows our roads are in a mess too! :-)

  5. Incidentally, Munguin, you paint a not innacurate picture with your puking and pissing imagery.

    I was in Bradford a couple of years ago on a Friday night for a concert. I arrived in the afternoon and at least 3/4 of the faces I saw in shops and driving taxis, working at the station and so on, were of Asian ethnicity.

    After the concert a crowd of us were looking for a restaurant, and the streets were filled with young white faces doing more or less all the things you described. Hardly an Asian face to be seen.

    We eventually found a cafe owned by Asians, (where no alcohol was served) and got a damned good meal, very cheap.

    Funny thing was, when I got up on the Saturday and made my way to the stations the day shift had taken over again, and nearly everyone was Asian.

    As Michael Jackson once sang (and then tried to imitate) "ain't no difference if you're back or white". For me people are people. Damned if I can see what the fuss is about.

  6. Of course Tris, every country has its good and bad. In what proportions would make an interesting debate - but for another time.

    "I think of Scotland as my country, but not mine as of right to the exclusion of other people ..."

    But Tris - it is exactly the exclusion of others that identifies a nation. If a nation were unable to exclude others it would soon disappear. What I think you mean is that you don't mind others coming to live in your country and making it their own. But to what extent? This is the elephant in the room. This is the question that those defending immigration refuse to answer.

    How many is too many?

  7. A really good question Scunnert, and one that I'm far too stupid to answer, I'm afraid. But at least I'm clever enough to realise that I'm not clever enough to know the answer .... :)

    Did that make any sense at all?

  8. Someone really needs to explain that the ethnic 'Englishman' or 'Scotsman' really doesnt exist as an ethnic racial grouping.

    What makes this kingdom great is the vry nature of ourselves; that we are not ethno-culturally based, but are ultimately all someone ancestors immigrant [or invader].

    The BNP are worse than dangerous, they are damn right ignorant of the history of population movements into and out of the British Isles. There is absolutetly nothing 'native' about an Anglo-Saxon or Scotti Celt for example. Both groups were invaders [to use their prefered descriptive].

  9. Hi Dean. Not had the pleasure of your company for a while. :-) Nice to see you.

    I'm pretty ignorant of it myself to be honest. But I reckon that whoever wants to live in Scotland and contribute to our world is welcome to do so, and if they bring some different customs, food, fashion with them fair enough. Not enough to stifle what we have, just to add to it. That will suit me fine.

    I think the BNP are poison. Their policies are based on hate and bitterness. That's the wrong way round to look at the world and it gets you nowhere, except maybe an early grave.

  10. Dean states:

    "... ethnic 'Englishman' or 'Scotsman' really doesnt exist as an ethnic racial grouping."

    While the idea of "racial groupings" has been largely abandoned I would like to hear your ideas on the non-existent ethnic Scots who "are not ethno-culturally based".

    As Dieneke explained on his anthro blog just a few days ago - everybody originated in Africa but people can be considered indigenous when their identity and culture grew in the land they occupy. That is the Scots became Scots in Scotland - the English in England. These are indigenous identities that are both ethnically, culturally, and geographically based. Scotland as a nation has existed for some twelve hundred years. That over the years a few strangers have settled among us is surely a tribute to our hospitable nature rather than evidence that we don't exist?

  11. scunnert-

    "Scotland as a nation has existed for some twelve hundred years"

    Scotland as a nation does exist as a contemporary creation, and as a Scot I am damn proud of it.

    However, the 'Scot' name derives from the Irish Celt immigration during 6th - 7th C, they were the Scotti clan/tribe [unsure which is most appropriate].

    Scotland as a geographical entity was not unified by ethnicity, or cultural unity. This I would academically contend. Scotland was divided during 6th - 7th C onwards as a result of 'Dal Raita' an Irish Celtic Kingdom; culturally 'Scoti [latin]'.

    A useful map of this Scoti kingdom can be found here:


    My point is however not to say 'Scotland doesnt exist as a nation today'. Merely that it is a solid historical innaccuracy espouced that we always have been a singluar cultural, linguistic, political and ethnic block. That is what the BNP pretend; that 'we are all natives'...well no...my point is basically that each and every one of us if we engage in such nonsense politics as ethnicity are immigrants.

    Afteral lets not forget south Western Scotland [Northumbria included; remember it was originally regarded as seperate from 'England'] was not Dal Raita Celtic but Briton [i.e the celtic branch of peoples who existed prior to Roman invasion].

    Dont please get me wrong, Scotland as a nation-state concept exists now. But historically it would be a mistake to generalise and pretend that the Scottish geographical landmass of the past was one culture, one enthic group, sharing language and custom [which they did not, and do not even till the present day].

    I hope I've not offended. That is hardly my intent!

  12. Dean the concept of disparate tribes reaching a consensus as to their identity and polity within Scotland is incontrovertible. Your drift into historical revisionism does not advance the debate.

  13. Dean. I'm sure that no offence was intended, or taken.

    I haven't researched the history of Scotland and cannot, therefore, reasonably adjudicate as a good forum host should, in the matter that you and Scunnert are discussing. (But feel free to carry on without me.)

    However, the fact remains that to judge someone by their ethnicity is repugnant. There are other far more important distinctions by which we should pass judgement on fellow humans.

    My reason for including this link was to highlight that someone standing in a Scottish by-election (albeit for the London government) was standing on a ticket of hating people because (and you'll excuse me for mentioning it again Scunnert) they wear pyjamas. Immigration is not a huge issue in Scotland and I believe the candidate will be well and truly dismissed but I felt there was a sharp difference between the attempt by Griffin to impress as a reasonable politician and the small minded racism of this video.

  14. "to judge someone by their ethnicity is repugnant"

    I know many black folks who would contend that to ignore or overlook their ethnicity would be an assault upon their dignity ad a sign of disrespect. They are not JUST men - but black men with a history that goes along with it that can't be ignored or forgotten. To ignore their ethnicity would be a denial of their collective history.

  15. Fair dos Scunnert. I should have said .... in my opinion.... before I made the comment.


  16. Ach - Ah'm just being contentious Tris and looking for an argument. Don't mind me.

  17. I kinda guessed that Scunnert LOL. After all that's what a forum is for is it not? I'm just not clever enough to argue with you....