It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: TV's Kilroy-Silk stands for UKIP

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 8 2004 @ 07:41 AM
Ex-BBC chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk will stand in next month's European elections for the UK Independence Party (UKIP). The former Labour MP hopes to become an MEP for the East Midlands region.


Mr Kilroy-Silk stepped down from his daily chat show in January after describing Arabs in a national newspaper as "limb amputators".

He represented the Merseyside constituency of Knowsley for 12 years from 1974.

[Edited on 5-8-2004 by Valhall]

posted on May, 8 2004 @ 07:58 AM
This is excellent news. Kilroy-Silk and the UKIP deserve one another, and, with luck, will collapse under the weight of their own prejudice. I predict he will lose the election in humiliating fashion, and the next time he tries to say something utterly disgusting and ignorant, he'll be drowned out by the hiss of his own deflating pomposity.

posted on May, 8 2004 @ 11:55 AM
For those who are not fimilar with Kilroy here is why he stepped down from his show. He wrote this is a article about islamic states;

The presenter branded Arabs "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors" and asked what they had given to the world other than oil.

The BBC stressed the comments did not reflect its views as a broadcaster.

It said the BBC One programme would be suspended from Monday while it investigated the matter fully.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) described the piece written by the discussion show host in last week's Sunday Express as a "gratuitous anti-Arab rant".

Mr Kilroy-Silk's article included comments saying the toppling of despotic regimes in the Middle East should be a war aim, and questioned the contribution of the Arab nations to world welfare and civilisation.

He said Arabs "murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September" and then "danced in the streets" to celebrate.

Full story

posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:42 PM
He said what a lot of people are thinking,until more people speak out there views will remain hidden.

posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:53 PM
They damn well *should* remain hidden. There is no excuse for that degree of rank stupidity, paticularly from someone in the public eye who, for better or worse, has a certain degree of influence.

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:42 AM

I think you are confusing the UKIP with the BNP. The BNP being the British National Party - a bunch of racist thugs.

The UKIP is not a predjudiced organisation at all. At the moment the UKIP is the fourth largest party in the UK and was founded to seek Britain's withdrawal from the EU. See a cutitng below from the 2004 manifesto:

"The UKIP is a non-racist, non-sectarian party. It includes British people of all backgrounds who value individual freedom, tolerance and our right to govern ourselves. The UKIP really believes in Britain and Britain's future as an independent nation competing in the world. We are not 'anti-European', but we oppose British membership of an EU that stifles our initiative and threatens our freedom. We do not seek to abolish the EU, for we believe that each nation in Europe should decide its own future. Britain has no more right to control them than they have to impose their will on us. "

more can be found at:

Also, in the UK EVERYBODY is entitled to free speech, celebrity or not. I don't hear you screaming for the hook handed cleric Abu Hamza to be deported (to Egypt where he faces terrorism charges) after urging Muslim Britons to 'seek marytordom upon their own doorstep', in other words telling them to suicide bomb our innocent asses. How long has he been voicing such opinions about the country that he lives in? If Mr Kilroy-Silks remarks were any where near as inciteful as Abu Hamza's then I could see him being arrested for 'racial hatred incitement'.

What makes this case any different. Why isn't Abu Hamza in prison for making remarks TEN times as bad as Kilroy?

I agree wholeheartdly with Mr Kilroy-Silk, even though he didn't pick the best time to say needed to be said! If Islamic nations did more to better themselves and the world around them rather than sneer at us and our allies, we would live in a much safer world. I admit he was cynical in his views but anyone with a tiny bit of common sense could see what he was trying to say.

Why is it that when a critisism is given by someone of an ethnic background (see how much fannying about I had to do there to avoid being labelled a racist?) about the state of the country that they have CHOSEN to live in, they are awarded pats on the back and 'community' awards?

Sorry Buddy, but he is as entitled to view his OPINIONS as much as you or I are, no matter how much in the public eye he is, he is still a member of this country's society.

We need rational debate on issues such as this and immigration etc (I actually held my breath as i typed that just waiting for some bonehead leftie to call me a racist!) not 'commitees' set up to silence the majority and amplify the minority.

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:54 AM
I think you also need to take what he said in the context in which it was written too.
He didn't brand "Arabs". He branded "Arab regimes". Big difference.
Only the newspaper didn't think to print his actual words, although they had already appeared in another column months before.

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:00 AM

Believe me, I'm well aware of what the UKIP is and what it's members stand for. My comments have not been constructed a direct attack against the UKIP but against Kilroy-Silk and what he represents.

Allow me, if I may, to condense your case somewhat:

"If Abu Hamza is allowed to spout disgusting, inflammatory, rascist bile, then Kilroy-Silk should be allowed to be just as ill-informed and ignorant."

Kilroy-Silk is a rascist. I know this, because - wait for it - he said rascist things. For crying out loud, his claim that "Arabs" were responsible for the deaths in the WTC is nothing short of jaw-dropping. It displays a pathetic ignorance of global sociopolitics, betrays a mind so shallow that it can only express itself in terms of "us good, them bad", and is, in short, one of the most small-minded things I've heard in a long time.

If, Nerevar, the UKIP is "non-rascist, non-sectarian" and "is not a prejudiced organisation at all", then they should not be consorting with those people who blatantly are. Sovereignty is an important issue - some would say, the defining issue of our age - and that is why it is far too important to let self-publicising slime like Kilroy-Silk hijack the debate.

I would like to encourage everyone to check out the UKIP website as linked by Nerevar, and to become active in the debate. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I demand that no room be given for small-minded bigotry of the worst kind.

Last minute addition:

Leveller, the distinction between "Arabs" and "Arab regimes" does not make it alright. Is the British government directly responsible for the actions of Ian Huntley of Myra Hindley? How about the BNP itself?

It's ignorant, and it's bollocks.

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Leveller, the distinction between "Arabs" and "Arab regimes" does not make it alright. Is the British government directly responsible for the actions of Ian Huntley of Myra Hindley? How about the BNP itself?

How is it ignorant? A government doesn't always represent it's people's wishes. Take Iraq for example - The Spanish government went to Iraq even though the vast majority of the Spanish people opposed the war. Would you say that the Spain's involvement in the Iraq situation was due to the "Spanish" or "Spanish government"? There are distinctions to be made between peoples and their governments.
Would you say that the Chinese government represents the view of the Chinese people? Or that Saddam represented the view of the Iraqi people? Of course not.
The undeniable truth is that Arab regimes are amongst the most repressive in the world. Not to admit to this fact is ignorance in itself.

The total and utter, undeniable fact, is that the Arab regimes that Killroy was referring to, do exactly as he said. Whether you like it or not - that's not racist. IT'S THE TRUTH.

As for the UK government being responsible for Hindley or Brady? Who said that they were? But the British society was responsible for creating them, in the same way that the Arabs aboard the 9/11 planes were created by their society.

Again. Not racist. Just simple, plain fact.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Leveller]

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:31 AM
I know what you are trying to say strangelands, but Kilroy is no racist. His remarks were indeed printed twice as Leveller pointed out..........where was all the fuss the first time they were printed?? Like Leveller says you need to see his words in the context he meant.

I agree with you, there is no place for racism in the globalised world of today but to say that the UKIP is racist by association is wrong.

The distinction between arabs and arab regimes is significant, as Leveller pointed out.

You must agree that alot of the worlds problems eminate from the middle east.......who is incharge of the middle east?? Arab regimes. That is the point Kilroy was trying to make. Because it is made against someone of a different race, its racist??? or maybe it is the truth.

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:37 AM
Well, okay. I'm not sure, but I think you just made my point for me.

Citizens are not always responsible for the (short-term) actions of their governments. Governments, equally, are not always responsible for the actions of their citizens. September the 11th was caused by people, not governments. The Madrid bombing, the rebellions in Iraq, the Bali bombings - all the fault of people, not governments.

Kilroy-Silk implied that *all* Arabs are responsible for the actions of the few nutters. That is distasteful, untrue, and actually rather pitiful. It comes from the same school of stereotypical thought which suggests that all Germans are humourless cabbage-munchers, all Australians have hats with corks on them, and all Irish people are stupid.

Aren't we a little bit more grown up than that?

And as for the rest - the comments regarding Middle Eastern nations and their contribution to history and global happiness - I would ask simply this:

What has Kilroy-Silk contributed?

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:56 AM
This website is made up of information regarding conspiraces and secret societies bent on world domination.Is it possible that the Muslim faith is just another New World Order?Is it racism that this is said because of there skin colour?Isn`t it racist to believe these are predominatly white institutions?
I have experiance of white males being assuaulted by Muslim families because there daughters are in relationships with none Muslims.
And areas where none Muslims are treated as outsides.
There are plans in areas of Britain where Schools are to became solely used by Muslims for the teaching of the Muslim faith.There has to be some give and take.
My partner is not British and l have experiance in other
European Countries,we are alot more tolerante than other E.U.members.T.V.E news recently Broadcast that the Spainish Govement are installing cameras with sound into all the mosques in Spain.France as recently expelled most of there Muslim clerics.

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:13 AM
Valid points - uh - Wierdo.

You know, I tried to make that sound like it wasn't an insult, but I'm not sure it worked...

You're right, of course - the Muslim faith *may* be one big cover for a global conspiracy of terror and bloodshed and the domination of the West by the Near East. I don't have any evidence to offer that disproves the idea. And I would never say that all Muslims are paragons of enlightenment and virtue, any more than I would say the same of any social group.

But until the day when concrete evidence is handed to me, I won't judge all Muslims by actions of a few. After all, I would expect the same consideration.

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:38 AM
No insult taken.My user name does not reflect my true identity.
All animals on this planet including the human race rarely
accept intergration.this is as said fact of life.
But to voice your views in the way Kilroy has done do`s not make him a racist,but time may tell.

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Kilroy-Silk implied that *all* Arabs are responsible for the actions of the few nutters.

Quite simply - no he didn't. His original words were "Arab regimes". By the time the papers got hold of it though it was simply "Arabs".
And there is no doubting his original words as I said earlier - the original words were printed months ago.

Your statement that 9/11 was solely down to individuals is untrue. You won't get a single person here to agree with you - the only question is which government was responsible.

As for what has Killroy done? Personally, I can't stand the guy, but you should go and look at his political career. He was solely responsible, amongst other things, for getting pensions for war widows. Try checking up on his political achievements before condemning out of hand.

posted on May, 11 2004 @ 02:32 AM
It's pointless to argue semantics - suffice to say that "Arab regimes" means "Arab governments" means "all Arabs". Kilroy-Silk can squirm and justify as much as he wants to - as can his supporters, whatever political colours they wear - but the fundamental ignorance of his words remains unchallenged.

Particularly when you remember that his words were printed in the Sunday Express - this is not a newspaper known for shades of grey and degrees of subtlety. They knew exactly what the point of Kilroy-Silk's diatribe was, as did anyone who read it. In any case, he should be happy - he may have lost a lowest-common-denominator talk show, but he's back in politics as a poster-boy for the xenophobe generation. I'm sure he'll find the pay cheques very welcome...

Kilroy-Silk's work on pensions was a good thing, and a great achievment. However, any good work he did while a politician has been undone by the twenty-odd years of low-brow drivel he spouted on his talk show. As the Sunday Telegraph commented at the time of the "Arab" debacle: "At 61, he retains the faintly chippy, over-assertive air of the poor boy made good, the politician made redundant and the clever man made low-brow".

And, as far as I'm aware, consensus on ATS does not equal truth. Paranoia does not equal truth. The only thing which *does* equal truth is evidence, and that's a little thin on the ground.

Deny Ignorance, anyone?

posted on May, 11 2004 @ 02:06 PM
Rubbish the truth is available for you.You will not find it written on the web or in any newspaper.If your want to know whether he is right you will need to travel to every Arab country to see the evidance.
Been to most and luckily made it back.

new topics

top topics


log in