to think it proves lots of people want change

[adsy]

That ukip are making such huge gains in the elections.
If mnetters could temper their hysteria of screaming racism, I think it is a clear indication that the fundamental principals of the party of no toEurope and no to continued mass immigration are very important to a lot of people

Funnily enough when ukip spokeswoman Suzanne Evanswas asked why ukip did badly in London she said that they have difficulty appealing to the educated, cultured and young.

What does that say about Ukip voters? And this was from their own spokesperson.

Romanian isn't a race. Most Romanians are white. I assume the poster is also white, as is Nigel Farage.

I've been reading this thread since it was first posted.

Disclosure: I'm a Masters level educated woman who lives in London and had considered voting UKIP briefly as I think the EU erodes democracy. Until I saw the quotes from many UKIP candidates and opinions on such matters as rape within marriage, maternity leave and equal pay etc.

What's interesting is that this thread, which started out with some fairly interesting debate and defense in many cases of those who voted this way because it should be okay to debate open immigration, EU membership etc has so quickly descended into a nasty one tarring Asian men with the brush of predatory families of men preying on girls. I'm not saying this hasn't happened: recent cases in Rochdale and Oldham would give solid evidence to say that there are occurrences of this. But the wholesale rejection of other communities does seem xenophobic to me - but maybe because in my corner of SE London there's much greater integration than in other areas - particularly in my home corner of the north west where I recognise what people have described the parallel lives phenomenon.

Personally, I'd deal with the criminal behaviour through our excellent British legal system, and the integration issues through more effective social policy. And think UKIP voters should think long and hard about the their broader policies before jumping into kneejerk reactions and stereotypes based on outlier cases. I'm not mad keen on rampant immigration, I don't think we have the infrastructure to give everyone a decent quality of life, and so would prefer a Canadian-style system.

But thanks to TucsonGirl, 22honey and others for confirming that the views of UKIP voters do by and large not chime with my own; I'm glad to vote differently to you but believe the demonisation of UKIP voters is bad for democracy. Much better to explain as PP on this thread have done where you are factually incorrect.

22honey I live amongst many mirpuri Pakistanis who you describe as rural and culturally backward. This is completely incorrect in my experience. My neighbour is mirpuri Pakistani and she is a GP, her husband a highly rated consultant paediatrician. I went to school with many Pakistanis, their work ethic is extraordinary. Most of them are lawyers, drs and accountants and they are usually constantly fundraising for causes.

I'm up north and in my diverse city there is a lot of integration and celebration of different cultures. It's attitudes like yours that cause division and segregation.

The "Racist" card has been thrown around too much this election. Way too much. "Racist" is thrown around at the drop of a hat now - the word has been demeaned.

My position on the EU is this. I want a referendum. I want a debate. It's long overdue, given the changes in our terms of membership since 1974. Would I vote to leave the EU? At the moment I'd say "Yes", but that's why I want the debate. Who knows, the UK independence argument under scrutiny might look as weak as the Scottish independence position. In which case, I'd be voting a definite "No".

I don't believe Cameron will grant a referendum. That's an issue of my trust in him and his party. Labour won't grant a referendum, as apparently it isn't an issue people are concerned with (said on the election night coverage - BBC). So that leaves UKIP, and it appears it's the correct decision given the pant-shitting we've seen from the Red and Blue parties yesterday. It will be UKIP for me at the GE too (subject to their full policies when and if they announce them ).

The behaviour of the left has hardened my position regarding UKIP. I will not be told who I "can't vote for". I will feel a natural sympathy for a party which is under attack from every angle, and which is targeted with violent protests from salaried activists.

Finally, before making the decision to support UKIP, I attended one of their local branch meetings (chaired by a women), attended a local public meeting, and got to know their local council candidate (a neighbour). I've done as much as I can to find out first-hand the type of party it is.

I do believe that the Tories will have a referendum but I don't believe that it will be a straightforward in/out choice, they'll fudge it somehow with a choice of staying in but renegotiating terms, which will turn out to mean very little. And we'll also get the mother of all propaganda campaigns giving all kinds of scare stories about what will happen if we leave.

I don't throw the word racist around.

But 22honey your posts are extremely racist and offensive, at least one has been deleted and I hope others will be too.

Saying all men from a certain culture are rapists is the very definition of the word.

I am surprised you have been allowed to argue this for so long here.

It's interesting isn't it how we start by talking about biting fir a single issue party who want Britain out of Europe and who have resorted to using images of Eastern Europeans flooding these small islands, becoming plumbers etc to win votes

And then we end with someone claiming that rape of minors is endemic in a particular Pakistani culture and that any attempt to counteract this view is met with accusations of playing the 'race card'

Well that way of talking about people is racist.

So in this thread we have gone from UKIP wanting to limit immigration of Eastern Europeans into this country and now someone feels they have been given permission to make racist statements in the guise if telling us 'how it is' - this is a UKIP supporter which tells you something about who votes fir them.

She said she isn't a UkIp supporter. I would suspect she votes BnP, to be totally honest.

TucsonGirl - Yep I suspect something close to what you describe. It would be the "mother of all U-turns" for the tories not to grant an an/out referendum now . But, I don't feel comfortable taking him at his word yet.

What UKIP need to do, is recognise when it's time to "stick" or "twist". I believe the time to "Stick" is if they are offered a pact by the Tories. Trying to "twist" by continuing to push in Westminster regardless, will ultimately get them no-where.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27532317

Sadly, it looks like a pact isn't close to being offered. It also looks like UKIP members are vehemently against any pact with the tories. Hope that changes in the next 11 months.

"Well that way of talking about people is racist."
No it isn't. Pakistani isn't a race. Nor is Mirpuri. Argue the point by all means, but you can't just dismiss it as RACIST and then move on.

Why I am a racist if I say I am worried about large numbers of people moving into an area, where these people practice a different religion and do not speak English and thus has serious implications for integration and pressure on local resources?

For example, when I moved from Brixton to Bristol a significant proportion of my daughter's class mates had parents who had just moved from Somalia. Their mothers were all robed, they spoke no English. Two did turn up to the first meeting of the PTA but couldn't understand what was happening and never came back.

As far as I could see there was nothing provided to help them learn English or integrate into the community and as far as I saw, they did not.

Why am I a racist because this troubles me?

I would really like someone to provide an explanation. I had always thought being 'racist' meant being prejudiced against someone because of their 'race'. I am not saying 'I hate Somalians, go back to where you came from'. I am saying that I don't think it is healthy to have ghettos by default and integration just doesn't 'happen'.

I would have precisely the same concerns about any group of people.

Refusing to discuss this issue - as mainstream politicians have until very recently - will not make the problem go away. And calling people 'racist' who are concerned is just stupid.

Disclaimer: I've only read the first 5 pages of this thread

I think UKIP votes are the result of a growing anti-establishment mood, particularly among those who do not have a well established 'public' voice. Most of the mass media is controlled by rich white capitalists or is very academic/left-wing led. Many media channels (particularly national papers such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror) profess to speak on behalf of the 'common man' but actually have their own political agenda.

Of course, the huge irony is that UKIP are just another example of the same; just another privileged white male capitalist looking to protect big business. However, they are the only people voicing the issues that this unrepresented group of people might be thinking about. A good example of this is wage contraction as a result of immigration. I have read views along the lines of 'people don't want to work for £X per hour, that's why we need immigration'. However, if there wasn't anyone prepared to work for £X per hour then wages would necessarily increase to attract workers. Wage contraction massively benefits big business and, of course, anyone who employs domestic staff. Typically the only people concerned by this are low wage earners. We had builders in a few years back and they talked at great length of how years back a 'brickie's' wage could support a whole family and now how they have to work weekend and evenings just to enjoy a similar lifestyle. Wage contraction needs to be discussed openly, along with its possible cures (e.g. you could curb low-skilled migration or the same ends could be achieved with the introduction of a Living Wage, moves to stimulate local and micro economies etc).

However, instead of taking issues such as this seriously and discussing the many non-radical ways to deal with it, it gets brushed under the carpet and, very frequently, it gets denied altogether. No wonder there is a growing anti-establishment feeling. When an issue that people are living with is denied to even exist (and, to boot, denied it exists by those who are benefiting most by it)

Tucsongirl. Yes you can dismiss it as racist. Abd indeed it has just been deleted as such.

Thankfully.

Tucson

It's fucking racist. And you know it.

No it isn't. And deleting anything anyone deems to be racist is hardly conducive to a healthy discussion of the issues. It's the suppression of opinion that has lead to the rise of UKIP!

I am reading some case law on the internet. This is a common problem and comes up a lot in my cases - families from non Western non secular cultures object vehemently to gay people.

See this bit from the case of J and S in 2014

Our family is a Slovak Roma family and we are practising Catholics and a homosexual couple as potential adopters is very different from what Mrs Justice Theis had in mind in her judgment as this will not promote the children's Roma heritage or their Catholic faith … Whilst we have no doubt that the prospective adopters have been properly assessed by the Local Authority, they are a homosexual couple and as such their lifestyle goes against our Roma culture and lifestyle

If anyone wants to read the full case it is herewww.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/4.html

I have had Jamaican, African, Indian and Pakistani families objecting vehemently to gay people.

So what do we do with these tensions? We are not going to stop promoting the rights of gay people to play a full role in society, including adopting or fostering children.

Are you going to tell these families they are 'thick fucking cunts' and should just shut up or are we ever going to be allowed to have an honest debate about the tensions that can arise in a society which tries to accommodate many different and distinct groups who have different and distinct ways of doing things?

Sorry, link fail
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/4.html

Bull. Shit,

Utter bollocks.

'The rise if UKIP' my arse.

If you think ascribing the rape of young white women to a particular Pakistani culture and suggesting whole families participate in this isn't racist but is part of a debate about immigration you are deluded at best.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Truly.

UKIP represents a tiny minority of 'little englander' views. Thank god.

Spero - we have laws in place to protect people. There is a huge amount if homophobia among you white men too

However, instead of taking issues such as this seriously and discussing the many non-radical ways to deal with it, it gets brushed under the carpet and, very frequently, it gets denied altogether. No wonder there is a growing anti-establishment feeling. When an issue that people are living with is denied to even exist (and, to boot, denied it exists by those who are benefiting most by it)

I agree completely. This explains why my dad voted UKIP. And why I won't call him a 'thick fucking cunt' for doing so.

Bog Queen - that is hardly an answer to my point. Young white secular men do not follow a religious and legal code which encourages them to hate gay men and deny women autonomy.

I have never had a white working class couple object to gay fosterers for their children with the same degree of venom. Presumably because they are not bolstered by a religious and cultural code that makes discrimination against gay people encouraged.

You can deny this is a problem all you like. That won't make it go away. But it will make it harder to deal with.

Sadly, it looks like a pact isn't close to being offered

I wouldn't be too sure - behind the scenes the phone lines are probably red hot; most politicians care only about being in power, and if that's that it takes ...

And I agree with you, Tucson, that it's suppression of free dicussion which has been largely responsible for the growth of UKIP

The Judge went on to say

Of course, any judge should have a decent respect to the opinions of those who come here from a foreign land, particularly if they have come from another country within the European Union. As I said in Re K; A Local Authority v N and Others [2005] EWHC 2956 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 399, para 26, "the court must always be sensitive to the cultural, social and religious circumstances of the particular child and family." But the fact is, the law is, that, at the end of the day, I have to judge matters according to the law of England and by reference to the standards of reasonable men and women in contemporary English society. The parents' views, whether religious, cultural, secular or social, are entitled to respect but cannot be determinative. They have made their life in this country and cannot impose their own views either on the local authority or on the court. Thus far I agree with the local authority. I have to say, however, that it was, in my view, unfortunate that the local authority should have referred at one stage in the proceedings to the parents' views on homosexuality in such a way as to suggest that they are bigoted. The label is unnecessary and hurtful

So if the parents were NOT bigots, what were they? they claimed being placed with a homosexual family would cause their children emotional harm because gay marriage had been condemned by bishops in Slovakia.

Sounds like bigotry to me.

So how do we accommodate certain groups wish to be bigots? What are you proposing for the young muslim men who patrol the streets in Tower Hamlets and challenge people for drinking alcohol ? What are you going to do about the schools in Birmingham? etc, etc, etc.

I didn't vote UKIP. I voted Green as a protest vote as there was NOBODY on my ballot paper I felt I could trust to ever want to talk about this sensibly.