It is interesting to read a list of the birthplaces of the colleagues of Simone Clarke who are principals or first solists in the English National Ballet:
Pinar de Rio, Cuba
Prague, Czech Republic
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
St Petersburg, Russia
My tolerant outlook towards people of other ethnicities and countries of birth was forged at school, where we had many countries represented.
Wouldn't you think that rubbing along with such a diverse company as the ENB would have led Simone Clarke in the opposite direction to the BNP?
She says that immigration to the UK has "really got out of hand". Ah. But if the BNP get their way, most of her colleagues will be offered money to return "home" and she could be left with just three colleagues. It must make for a rather uncomfortable working relationship when most of your close colleagues know that you want them to be paid to "go home".
BNP policy is:
IMMIGRATION - time to say ENOUGH!
On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question. We will abolish the 'positive discrimination' schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of 'asylum seekers', all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.
It is one thing being a member of the BNP. It is another giving an interview to the Mail on Sunday when you are member of such an ethnically diverse ballet company.
Simone Clarke seem to be rather naive. She says:
I am angry because I don't think it should be public knowledge who someone votes for. People are easily offended by political views, whatever the persuasion, and for that reason I think it should stay private.
Of course, which way someone votes is private and will remain so unless, like her, you join a political party, in which case, I would have thought you are fair game. Does the lady not realise that there is a difference between voting and being a member of a political party?
Doesn't she realise that by giving an interview to the Mail on Sunday she is ensuring that another 6.2 million read about how she votes?
That is hardly the way to keep it quiet.