Question Time 22/10/09

[Pickles]

[quote user="chessie"]I really must take issue with some of the terribly condescending and patronising comments here.[/quote]

My comments are aimed at establishing the difference between where there is a real story - because there ARE some real stories - and made-up stuff. If you want to build an case for your point of view, check the source of the story and think about what axe they are grinding.

[quote user="chessie"]And as for not believing the stupidity that goes on in the UK,[/quote]

I believe that comment was directed at my contribution. What I actually said was that:

[quote user="Pickles"]there are enough stupid things going on in the UK without someone needing to make them up[/quote]

I never said that I didn't believe the stupidity that goes on. Some of it is entirely believable and factual: the rest is fiction. We don't need the fictitious stuff.

[quote user="chessie"]I had

personal experience of NOT being able to put up leaflets in my local

library (paid for out of my taxes) for a Christmas Carol service at the

local Parish Church - on the grounds that 'others might find it

offensive' !!!!!!   [/quote]

And if you had challenged that, I strongly suspect that the person who stopped you would not be able to find a policy statement established at the competent level of authority in the council telling them to act in that way, and thus was acting illegally. I come across stupidity like this (ie like a ban on carol concert publicity, a misinterpretation of the Data Protection Act, a misinterpretation of "Health and Safety") all the time, so-called "rules" or "regulations" that turn out to have been invented on the fly at a VERY low level in the organisation by ill-informed and ill-educated staff who are ignorant of the rules and policies that are supposed to govern their actions.

[quote user="chessie"]So those stories which some of you consider to

be 'urban myths' - I can tell you from first hand experience THEY ARE

NOT, NOT[/quote]

The ones that have been shown to be false, ARE urban myths. By definition. There are other instances, like the one that you portray above, for which you have reliable evidence, which are not: let's stick with the ones we know to be true rather than stuff that has been made up or misrepresented in order to sell newspapers.

Regards

Pickles

[Judith]

[quote user="nectarine"]

I remember her always saying that it was SHE who had to adapt, there was no special treatment, no counselling. You were the stranger and you obeyed the rules because you had voluntarily come into the country and that was your choice to stay.

Now that's an extreme example and certainly she experienced unacceptable behaviour. But, for me, I believe if you go into another country, another culture, from choice, then you have to accept their way of doing thing......... But I do believe that immigrants must adapt and follow the laws of the land to which they choose to come, just as my mother had to. And to her dying day she blessed the opportunities that England had given her.[/quote]

I can confirm this attitude - in more recent immigrants. From 2001 to 2007 I worked with a Jamaican who came over in the 50's, he decided that the only way to survive (and he thought more of the Queen and the royal family until the day he died than many English do) was to conform.  By the end, even he, as an immigrant himself, was concerned about the later immigrants not having the same sense of loyalty to the country he was brought up to believe was the mother country. 

[Quillan]

I found the article HERE that Chessie is talking about.

The problem with articles like this one is that in much the same way that people give their vision of a particular point on a forum such as this so do journalists in news papers. On top of that they also have a political leaning. Sometimes they either don't do their research properly or simply ignore other facts.

I, like a few others previously, on this thread believe that these issues should be openly discussed and in full view of the general public. I was looking forward to an open debate on QT because in doing so and allowing the BNP an open platform people would see exactly how they twist and turn and what they really are. Sadly what Nectarine said is true, he was shouted down and not really allowed to speak. When he did it was clear to me that if allowed to continue he would have 'hung' himself. Just think of the stupid comment about intercepted WW2 radio messages and his change in view about the holocaust, what other stupid things would he have come out with given the chance.

In the article it mentioned the increase in work permits since 1997. One thing I do remember that effected the industry in which I worked was the IR35 legislation which severely penalised contract workers in the IT industry (to name but one) by increasing their tax burden by large amounts. This resulted in many leaving the UK or taking up other forms of employment. This also resulted in a massive reduction in the pool of available contractors and the government had no option to 'fast track' people through the work permit scheme to fill those vacancies. Many of those immigrants also worked for far less an hourly rate but then they didn't have the same overheads as UK contractors.

With regards to jobs why is it that a large group of people in the UK don't want to work even when they can earn more money than they get on the 'dole'. I remember seeing an interview with a group of lads hanging around outside an 8 to 8 shop. They were offered work at much higher rate than the dole but refused because it was fruit and veg picking. The result of this is that the farmers have no alternative but to use immigrant labour. There are loads of other examples of this.

What I would like to see is a change in how unemployment benefits are given out. In some cases I would like to see people effectively forced to work if the work is something they can do, like fruit and veg picking (as an example). You don't take the the job then your money stops. Its not just some of the immigrants that do not contribute to the system, there's a load of 'English' out there that don't as well. What Straw did say was that in hindsight it might have been better if the UK did put in to effect the same restrictions on EU immigrants as the French and a couple of other EU countries when the membership went to 27 countries.

The UK has long been a multi denominational faith country. Nobody mentions the synagogues that sprung up all over the place, what about the massive HQ of the Scientologists (hope I spelt that right) built in East Grinstead on green belt land. At least the mosques are more pleasing to the eye architecturally wise.

By the way many might not know it but immigrants must carry at all times their residency permits (and work permits if required) and its an offence not to. If asked to produce them by the police they must or face being taken to the local police station. The police even have the right, if the person says its at home, to go there and search for it. Some Human Rights activists are trying to get the law changed on this as its discriminatory because they only ask immigrants for ID. Perhaps if the UK had ID cards they wouldn't be able to appeal against this law on the basis that anyone could be asked for their ID at any time. Of course it won't stop the more sophisticated illegal immigrants but it would make it a lot harder.

The article states that there has been a 2.3M increase in immigrants since 2001, well if you read the data from the National Statistics Office (not a political organization) its actually 1.3M. Its expected to fall yet again in 2009 having fallen since its peak in 2004/5 by some 37,000 (263,000 to 186,000). The rate of 'Natural Change' since 2007 has now increased beyond the rate of immigration by around 30,000. These are their figures and not those transposed and modified which appear in government reports.

To start a debate on these issues, which is long over due, we must all be given the undiluted and unmodified facts so we all know the truth. Only then can we have an full and open debate.

[Quillan]

[quote user="ebaynut"]

Maybe you have heard of "Operation Trident", (goggle it if you have never heard of it) it is the unit that tackles gun crime in the capital. Not any gun crime, but gun crime in the black community.

I have a friend who serves in the Metropolitan police, one day I asked him if  there is a unit that tackles white gun crime in the capital, "no need for one " he replied.  

 

I now predict a long list of links to sites showing crime committed by whites in London. [Www]

 

[/quote]

Your right, I had to google it and their website is HERE .

Strangely the 'Home' page has a gun held by a black hand and a white hand, the black hand clearly is masculine and the white hand feminine. I read through the site and there is absolutely nothing to back up you comments. I do agree that there is no requiremnt for guns in a modern society be they held by white, black, brown or little green people with bug eyes and as such they are mainly illegal (most of the time).

[buelligan]

ebaynut wrote; [quote]

buelligan wrote:

I think it would be useful if you would define the Values and Culture of the "English", tegwini.

Why are you so keen to know the answer to this question? Do you think that possibly you may have a test to take to see if you can become a British citizen at some time in the future and are looking for some tips?[/quote]

 

Not at all.  I keep reading the same sanctimonious guff  "...if an immigrant wishes to come to Britain they must have our Values, our Culture..." (absolute hypocrisy when you think it's posted in English on a forum for "immigrants" to France).  However, if we are going to say this, we must define exactly what we mean by the terms (or how can we enact this rule?).  I suspect that anybody ever does manage to cobble together a list of these qualities and ideals, everyone else will argue about the inclusion of this or the removal of that.  In short, I don't believe it is possible to make such a list that is accepted by all British people.  If this is the case this criteria is hardly a useful one for determining whether a person may or may not live in Britain.  It's just another emotive and illogical blast of hot air.

 

As far as taking a test for "Britishness" goes I am happy to acknowledge that I would probably fail one that you set.  I am decended from Saint Seaxburh of Ely (Queen of Kent) and Edward Jenner.  I am also decended from a signatory of the Declaration of Independence (and, through him, less directly to Baldur von Schirach, Head of the Hitler-Jugend).  Neither of my grandfathers were combatants in WWII as both were scientists (but one also ran a POW camp).  In my experience, all people are a melange.  We cannot escape our ancestors but they do not make us what we are.  In-breeding is simply not a virtue.

[Quillan]

There is no clear definition of what Britishness really is. Dr David Starkey has often argued that you can't define Britishness based initially on the basic principle that Britain is formed from four separate nations, Scotland, Wales, Ireland (Northern) and England each has its own cultural identity. Just think what the national costume would look like, a bloke in a Scottish kilt with a bowler hat, Irish bagpipes and a leak attached to his shirt with bells round his knees beating people over the head with an inflated pigs bladder, not a pretty sight. [;-)]

If you want to get a 'feel' for what people would like to think Britishness is then try Googling 'What is Britishness', there's loads of stuff to read.

(added) If you want to become a British Citizen there is a test required and you can find out more about it HERE .

[Hoddy]

I think talk of values is a bit of a red herring here. I know that some of my values are different from those of my fellow citizens and I am happy to accept that. What I think we do have a right to expect is that anyone who chooses to live in the UK should abide by UK law. In great measure they do although there are a few very worrying areas where this is not the case. Someone else has already mentioned the treatment of women which is of particular interest to me. So-called honour killing is the extreme expression of widespread abuse of women in some communities which I find abhorrent. This is not because I am racist it is because I want my fellow British citizens to have the same freedoms that I do.

I agree with Pickles that silly decisions are made by people who don’t really know what they are doing as evidenced by the carol service leaflets. We had a case locally where the return of the statue of a boar to the local park was questioned by a white councillor only to find that the local moslems didn’t mind at all.

It is certainly true that we need to do something about our unemployed young men (has anyone else been watching Seven Days on the Breadline ? ) but I don’t believe that imported cheap labour is the way to do it. These young men and women live in awful conditions, often in thrall to a gangmaster, I don’t like that for them any more than I would for a UK citizen. It can only happen because we don’t pay the proper price for our goods and services. Our prosperity has been built on a number of myths for sometime now and I think that this is one of them.

Hoddy

[Celine]

nectarine - whilst I fully agree with your comments about free speech, the reason many people terminate the conversation by as you say "hurling the term "racist" is because they find the content offensive. There's no point both sides making fools of themselves by ranting, so very often that provides the way to shut the discussion up.

And chessie, I wouldn't be too fearful for your family's future in the UK, As you say, one adapts when one is living in it, especially if under 40 or so. it's not fair to paint such an awful picture of what are actually young people's lives and aspirations when they are relatively happy with the situation or more to the point, not giving it much thought. Too many other things to enjoy!

[Quillan]

[quote user="Hoddy"]So-called honour killing is the extreme expression of widespread abuse of women in some communities which I find abhorrent.

[/quote]

Absolutely spot on Hoddy, there is no honour in taking any life. This was a case of murder for that is what it is, nothing to do with honour. It's the blinking media AGAIN that comes up with these phrases and I really wish they were stopped from doing so.

[Hoddy]

I have to correct you Q. It is not the media that came up with this phrase; it is the communities which practice it. They genuinely do believe that 'immorality' dishonours the family.

Hoddy

[Hoddy]

IMO it’s this kind of trivia being churned out on a daily basis which makes matters seem much worse than they really are.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/article2700630.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223457/HobNobgate-This-really-takes-biscuit---BBC-thought-police-tried-cover-gentle-quip.html

Hoddy

[ebaynut]

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="ebaynut"]

[/quote]

Your right, I had to google it and their website is HERE .

Strangely the 'Home' page has a gun held by a black hand and a white hand, the black hand clearly is masculine and the white hand feminine. I read through the site and there is absolutely nothing to back up you comments. I do agree that there is no requiremnt for guns in a modern society be they held by white, black, brown or little green people with bug eyes and as such they are mainly illegal (most of the time).

[/quote]

So you missed this part then???

Trident is an anti-gun crime operation that was set up in 1998 to help bring an end to a spate of shootings and murders among young, black Londoners.

Over 350 police officers and 86 support staff work just on Trident. They are advised and informed by a group of black community leaders called the Trident Independent Advisory Group.

75% of London's gun crime involves the victim and suspect both coming from the capital's black communities. Trident was set up in response to black community members wanting the police to do something that specifically targeted the criminals affecting them. Trident only works because it is a partnership with community leaders combined with robust, intelligence based policing.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Hoddy"]I have to correct you Q. It is not the media that came up with this phrase; it is the communities which practice it. They genuinely do believe that 'immorality' dishonours the family. Hoddy[/quote]

Yes you are right. Perhaps I wrote it badly, what I meant was that the media also refer to it as that but they should call it murder and leave out the the term 'honour killing'.

[Quillan]

[quote user="ebaynut"][quote user="Quillan"][quote user="ebaynut"]

[/quote]

Your right, I had to google it and their website is HERE .

Strangely the 'Home' page has a gun held by a black hand and a white hand, the black hand clearly is masculine and the white hand feminine. I read through the site and there is absolutely nothing to back up you comments. I do agree that there is no requiremnt for guns in a modern society be they held by white, black, brown or little green people with bug eyes and as such they are mainly illegal (most of the time).

[/quote]

So you missed this part then???

[/quote]

Yes I did, sorry but I only read from the pages given on the left hand side. It still says 75% so do we assume the other 25% are white?

Are these percentages representative of the whole of the UK?

[ebaynut]

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="ebaynut"][quote user="Quillan"][quote user="ebaynut"]

[/quote]

[/quote]

So you missed this part then???

[/quote]

 

Yes I did, sorry but I only read from the pages given on the left hand side. It still says 75% so do we assume the other 25% are white?

Are these percentages representative of the whole of the UK?

[/quote]

I somehow thought you would only read the left side.  [;-)]

Lets ignore the 75% then and concentrate on the 25% that may be white. 

and no, I doubt the percentages represent the UK as a whole, YET.

[tegwini]

Thanks and spot on Chessie & Nectarine

Some of us are living in the UK and are not immigrants to anywhere - including France.  This forum may concern France, but some of us have second or holiday homes in France, and are living in the UK and are concerned with the changes taking place in the UK - and taking place rapidly too.

And,  PC attitudes are alive even in the leafy shires.  Salisbury for example, until about 15 years ago always had a nativity on the Guildhall portico at Christmas time.

But, nowadays we have a tree, and NO Christian Christmas symbols,  and a 'happy holidays' district/county council celebration.  To  avoid upsetting non-Christians one assumes.   And this in a city with a history of Christianity stretching back well over 1200 years.

I too shall seek out a parapet - or an air raid shelter!

Tegwini

[Dog]

[quote user="ebaynut"][quote user="Quillan"][quote user="ebaynut"]

[/quote]

Your right, I had to google it and their website is HERE .

Strangely the 'Home' page has a gun held by a black hand and a white hand, the black hand clearly is masculine and the white hand feminine. I read through the site and there is absolutely nothing to back up you comments. I do agree that there is no requiremnt for guns in a modern society be they held by white, black, brown or little green people with bug eyes and as such they are mainly illegal (most of the time).

[/quote]

So you missed this part then???

Trident is an anti-gun crime operation that was set up in 1998 to help bring an end to a spate of shootings and murders among young, black Londoners.

Over 350 police officers and 86 support staff work just on Trident. They are advised and informed by a group of black community leaders called the Trident Independent Advisory Group.

75% of London's gun crime involves the victim and suspect both coming from the capital's black communities. Trident was set up in response to black community members wanting the police to do something that specifically targeted the criminals affecting them. Trident only works because it is a partnership with community leaders combined with robust, intelligence based policing.

[/quote]

 

Crumbs - however much does that cost!!!

[ScoobyInFrance]

Tegwini, Chessie, Nectarine, Ebaynut, Hoddy - well said.

[Hoddy]

Tegwini, you need to be sure that you are interpreting what you see correctly. A village near here has stopped providing a Christmas tree thanks to vandalism by drunken teenagers, none of whom could be described as immigrants by any standard that you apply. The same thing could be true in the case you mention.

Hoddy

[buelligan]

tegwini wrote; [quote]But, nowadays we have a tree, and NO Christian Christmas symbols,  and a 'happy holidays' district/county council celebration.  To  avoid upsetting non-Christians one assumes.   And this in a city with a history of Christianity stretching back well over 1200 years.[/quote]

Mark 9:35-36, Matthew 5:40-48, 22:34-40

[tegwini]

Hi Hoddy

The nativity - or the 'happy holiday' trees can't be vandalised - or even touched -  as the display is more than 20 ft off the ground and to my knowledge never vandalised - then or now.

Tegwini

edit - tried to put a pic here - but could not!

[Hoddy]

Thanks for the clarification, Tegwini.

If I felt as you do I think I would be making representations to the council that made the decision. When I was working in a very multi-cultural setting, I used to receive more Christmas cards from Moslems than I did from Christians. I suspect that the decision may have been taken by over-zealous people aspiring to be politically correct without consulting the people who haven't consulted those who they are afraid of offending.

Hoddy

[cooperlola]

I'm not keen on the expression "happy holidays" either - I believe the habit began in the US, didn't it?  However, I am sure the point is not to "not offend" but rather to be inclusive and to wish that those who don't believe in a christian god or perhaps believe god doesn't exist at all, have a good time also.   I don't know who this god is that everybody goes on about - to my mind nobody has every proved to my satisfaction that he exists at all, but it is nice to know that those who believe in god are kind enough to wish that I have a good time at the end of December too.  But wishing me a happy christmas would do just as well, thanks, I know what you all mean by it.[:)]

[Quillan]

To be honest if I felt rather upset about this I think I would raise a petition and ask everyone, whatever their ethnic and religious background, to sign. I rather think that probably you would get just as many non Christians signing as Christians.

The other thing of course is to claim discrimination under the Religious Discrimination Act which states.:

The European Convention on Human Rights upholds freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the manifestation of religion and belief. This was included in the Human Rights Act (1998), but only applies directly to public bodies.

and

The religious discrimination regulations give protection against discrimination on the grounds of "any religion, religious belief or philosophical belief" in a similar way to the existing sex discrimination and race discrimination laws. The Equality Act 2006 widened this to specifically protect "lack of belief" as well.

As the council is a 'public body' then they are discriminating against Christians by not allowing you to put Merry Christmas on their tree(s). I am sure you could get enough equally minded people to support you.

Hope that helps.

[Pickles]

Interesting contribution from the Economist this week:

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14700670

Regards

Pickles