UKIP's Godfrey Bloom under fire over 'demeaning' joke

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why would Godfrey Bloom go mad and become a rude, ugly man at the result of someone asking? Maybe it says something when they do not have a single black councillor...

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4

UKIP do not have a single black councillor.

So what's your point?

[Chippiewill]

UKIP do not have a single black councillor.

So what's your point?

UKIP is racist and doesn't allow black people as councillors.

I imagine would be his point.

[-:Undertaker:-]

UKIP is racist and doesn't allow black people as councillors.

I imagine would be his point.

Well it'd be a valid point if they didn't allow black people as councillors, but that's not true - so therefore he must be getting at something else which is this: he obviously believes in the notion that only black people can be representative of other black people, therefore because a political party happens to not have any black people elected thus it doesn't represent any of the electorate who are black.

Now to me that's racism assuming that people of the same race think all the same way.

[Chippiewill]

Well it'd be a valid point if they didn't allow black people as councillors, but that's not true

Maybe it's not an official policy, but the decision makers are clearly inherently racist and come up with ******** reasons not to let the black people in. If they weren't racist they'd have a policy about meeting a quota or something. Isn't it obvious.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Maybe it's not an official policy, but the decision makers are clearly inherently racist and come up with ******** reasons not to let the black people in. If they weren't racist they'd have a policy about meeting a quota or something. Isn't it obvious.

Indeed, that must be why I gave this brown man one of my highest votes for the UKIP MEP selection just last month.

+rep

[AgnesIO]

UKIP is racist and doesn't allow black people as councillors.

I imagine would be his point.

Well it'd be a valid point if they didn't allow black people as councillors, but that's not true - so therefore he must be getting at something else which is this: he obviously believes in the notion that only black people can be representative of other black people, therefore because a political party happens to not have any black people elected thus it doesn't represent any of the electorate who are black.

Now to me that's racism assuming that people of the same race think all the same way.

Excellent words stuffed into my mouth here. I get that you both adore UKIP, but that really doesn't stop the rest of the forum having other ideas. Now if the rest of the nation thinks in the way as you (and if we believe the propaganda that is flooded on to this forum, you do believe so), why oh why did Nigel Farage have to condemn the joke? I mean, surely he doesn't need to say anything if everyone finds it a funny joke? Or, could it possibly mean that not everyone thinks it was a hilarious thriller.

Now, how's that for putting words and thoughts into your mouth?

Back onto the representative thing, do you not feel that disabled people should be entitled to their own voice? Do you know think having women in parliament is important? Certainly that is what you have just said (or are black people different? I'd love to hear it).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Excellent words stuffed into my mouth here. I get that you both adore UKIP, but that really doesn't stop the rest of the forum having other ideas. Now if the rest of the nation thinks in the way as you (and if we believe the propaganda that is flooded on to this forum, you do believe so), why oh why did Nigel Farage have to condemn the joke? I mean, surely he doesn't need to say anything if everyone finds it a funny joke? Or, could it possibly mean that not everyone thinks it was a hilarious thriller.

Now, how's that for putting words and thoughts into your mouth?

Because Farage is under pressure by a media dying to jump down his throat at every chance instead of asking questions about policy - I did not once observe Michael Crick or C4 News ask any question on policy. I wish Crick had challenged them on policy, because UKIP should be held to account on policy just as all other parties should be - that in my view is the role of a political journalist.

But even if Farage does really think it's dreadful etc I don't care because I can see it's a joke.

Back onto the representative thing, do you not feel that disabled people should be entitled to their own voice? Do you know think having women in parliament is important? Certainly that is what you have just said (or are black people different? I'd love to hear it).

You said above that I stuffed words into your mouth, yet you've just gone and proved my point. Why does the gender, colour of somebody's skin or even a disability somehow mean that they speak for all those who belong in that group? do all the people in these social or ethnic groups think the same do they?

So you asked, do I think having somebody with a vagina in parliament is important? - not really, them having a vagina doesn't interest me in the slightest just as them being black, chinese, gay or lesbian doesn't bother me. What concerns me, and what I vote on, is whether or not I agree with the candidate or party in question. Policy matters, not how somebody looks.

As i've stated in the past on this forum - i'd vote for a gay one legged, green skinned, bog eyed tramp in a wheelchair if he represented my views best. It really doesn't bother me what the candidate looks like or what ethnic group they belong to, because ethnic group does not = viewpoint. In other words, skin colour doesn't equal your mindset - although you seem to think so.

[AgnesIO]

Because Farage is under pressure by a media dying to jump down his throat at every chance instead of asking questions about policy - I did not once observe Michael Crick or C4 News ask any question on policy.

But even if Farage does really think it's dreadful etc I don't care because I can see it's a joke.

You miss my point. If nobody considered the language to be offensive, it would be irrelevant what the media thought. If Bloom said "Everyone woman in this room has a Labrador" there wouldn't be an issue - or told a knock, knock joke. The fact is Bloom came out with a completely idiotic comment which simply makes UKIP look like the bunch of loonies that they are.

The problem UKIP have and will continue to have is that they attract idiots like Bloom, who (whether you think of him as an European Parliament hero or not) continuously make UKIP look ridiculous.

You said above that I stuffed words into your mouth, yet you've just gone and proved my point. Why does the gender, colour of somebody's skin or even a disability somehow mean that they speak for all those who belong in that group? do all the people in these social or ethnic groups think the same do they?

So you asked, do I think having somebody with a vagina in parliament is important? - not really, them having a vagina doesn't interest me in the slightest just as them being black, chinese, gay or lesbian bothers me. What concerns me, and what I vote on, is whether or not I agree with the candidate in question. Policy matters, not how somebody looks.

As i've stated in the past on this forum - i'd vote for a gay one legged, green skinned, bog eyed tramp in a wheelchair if he represented my views best. It really doesn't bother me what the candidate looks like or what ethnic group they belong to, because ethnic group does not = viewpoint. In other words, skin colour doesn't equal your mindset although you seem to think so.

Personally, I do believe it is important to have some sort of spread of people, and if you seriously think that makes me a racist than you are just as mad in the head as Bloom - and I really don't think you are that stupid. Of course they won't speak for all in their respective group, but I imagine the chance of them being able to fully represent them is greatly enhanced. Just like how the Tories are known for looking out for themselves (ie. the rich), I imagine a House of Commons of poor people would do a fantastic job at taxing the rich hugely, whilst giving themselves benefits.

Too short.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You miss my point. If nobody considered the language to be offensive, it would be irrelevant what the media thought. If Bloom said "Everyone woman in this room has a Labrador" there wouldn't be an issue - or told a knock, knock joke. The fact is Bloom came out with a completely idiotic comment which simply makes UKIP look like the bunch of loonies that they are.

Then lets have the electorate judge on that, just as they did with his Bongo Bongo comments. As I recall at the time, most of the comments online (yes not the best sample in the world but hey) were in favour of his message.

The problem UKIP have and will continue to have is that they attract idiots like Bloom, who (whether you think of him as an European Parliament hero or not) continuously make UKIP look ridiculous.

I'd rather a Bloom in my party anyday (a man who was in the armed forces, worked in real job and is politically incorrect) than a Cameron, a Hague, an Osborne or a May.

Personally, I do believe it is important to have some sort of spread of people, and if you seriously think that makes me a racist than you are just as mad in the head as Bloom - and I really don't think you are that stupid. Of course they won't speak for all in their respective group, but I imagine the chance of them being able to fully represent them is greatly enhanced. Just like how the Tories are known for looking out for themselves (ie. the rich), I imagine a House of Commons of poor people would do a fantastic job at taxing the rich hugely, whilst giving themselves benefits.

So let's assume we have two Labour MPs who broadly believe the same in terms of policy. Now why is it important that one of those is black and one of those is white? because it wins more votes? well that would be voting on racial and ethnic lines and I don't believe most people do that. How is the black MP more 'representative' (other than he shares the same skin colour as black people) for people who have black skin? I don't understand it.

If race doesn't matter, and I don't believe it does, then why does race matter anymore than the colour of a candidates hair does? When I voted to rank the UKIP MEP candidates last month, I didn't take into account the race, gender or sexuality of any of the candidates. Why would I?

[Ardemax]

I think he was implying that by there being no black people on the brochure that there were no black councillors which implies that UKIP doesn't accept black people as it's not representative of the population.


Dry humor is easy to miss, that said it's not appropriate for a politician.

If you call that dry humour then I don't know what to think.

Can't we all just agree that Bloom is a sexist pig who deserves to be nowhere near the public eye?