PDA

View Full Version : The right to leave



stewart38
31st-August-2005, 11:23 PM
Any one seen this doing the rounds ??

Note it doesnt originate from me but was interesting
-------------------------------------------


Subject: Fwd: RE: The Right to Leave


United Kingdom - The Right to Leave

Our Country - YOU, the immigrants, have the right - the right to leave !
After many cities not wanting to offend other cultures by putting up Xmas lights!!!!!
After hearing that the Birmingham council changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered!!!!!
The above was the final straw in many bureaucratic changes of gross stupidity over the past few years & prompted this editorial, written by a UK citizen, to be published in a British tabloid newspaper.

IMMIGRANTS, NOT BRITAIN'S, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on London, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Brits.

However, the dust from the attacks has barely settled and the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism is offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is honourably seeking a better life by coming to Britain.

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of London being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Britons, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.

This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!

"In God We Trust" is our National Motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture.

If ST Georges cross offends you, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change. Try understand, we really don't care how you did things where you came from.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and if you are prepared to integrate honourably, we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great British freedom,
"THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".

If you aren't happy here then go!! We didn't force you to come here.
Remember, YOU asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted. Pretty easy really, when you think about it.

I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends (and enemies) it will also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try, please.
No matter how many times you receive it... please forward it to all you know.


-------------------------------------------------------

ducasi
31st-August-2005, 11:30 PM
"In God We Trust" is our National Motto. Yeah, in America!?!?

If ST Georges cross offends you, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. :rolleyes:

LMC
31st-August-2005, 11:34 PM
Any one seen this doing the rounds ??

Note it doesnt originate from me but was interesting

Either the Daily Mail or the BNP I would guess...


snips racist polemic
No matter how many times you receive it... please forward it to all you know.
I HATE that forward to all you know thing :mad: waste of bandwidth :mad:

EDIT:

To redress the balance slightly, I would like to recommend http://www.icar.org.uk/?lid=4915 - a factsheet on public opinion from the Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees (ICAR). It is quite horrifying how ill-informed and unbalanced media reporting is in this country.

El Salsero Gringo
31st-August-2005, 11:42 PM
Any one seen this doing the rounds ??

Note it doesnt originate from me but was interesting
-------------------------------------------


Subject: Fwd: RE: The Right to Leave


United Kingdom - The Right to Leave

Our Country - YOU, the immigrants, have the right - the right to leave !
After many cities not wanting to offend other cultures by putting up Xmas lights!!!!!
After hearing that the Birmingham council changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered!!!!!
The above was the final straw in many bureaucratic changes of gross stupidity over the past few years & prompted this editorial, written by a UK citizen, to be published in a British tabloid newspaper.

IMMIGRANTS, NOT BRITAIN'S, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on London, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Brits.

However, the dust from the attacks has barely settled and the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism is offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is honourably seeking a better life by coming to Britain.

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of London being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Britons, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.

This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!

"In God We Trust" is our National Motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture.

If ST Georges cross offends you, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change. Try understand, we really don't care how you did things where you came from.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and if you are prepared to integrate honourably, we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great British freedom,
"THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".

If you aren't happy here then go!! We didn't force you to come here.
Remember, YOU asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted. Pretty easy really, when you think about it.

I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends (and enemies) it will also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try, please.
No matter how many times you receive it... please forward it to all you know.


-------------------------------------------------------
Speaking as a non-Christian, and as a part of an immigrant minority (non-Christian) community, I have always felt at home with the fact that this is a Christian country, that (school) Christmas nativity plays were religious, that we have holidays based around Christian festivals, and other religious effects upon daily life.

I find irony in the (oft stated) fact that some of the faiths which do object to Christian symbolism in the UK are in turn the least tolerant of other cultures in countries where that other faith forms an established part of a national government.

However, when it comes to claims of patriotism, and protecting 'our culture' from outside influence - alarm bells start to ring in my head. Our culture, like our language, is not a homogeneous thing; each generation brings new influences via immigration and the media and that is only a good thing. I say 'our' culture for although I belong to a minority community I claim a tiny but an equal share in what is 'British' to that of every other person entitled to bear a British passport.

Overall, I'd say the tone of the piece and much of its content was a load of rabble-rousing rhetoric without a lot of merit.

azande
1st-September-2005, 12:00 AM
Overall, I'd say the tone of the piece and much of its content was a load of rabble-rousing rhetoric without a lot of merit.
:yeah:

Stewart, did you post this for our "information" or do you really agree with it?

stewart38
1st-September-2005, 12:15 AM
:yeah:

Stewart, did you post this for our "information" or do you really agree with it?

No i do not agree with it all but just posted it for comments.

If it causes offence , :whistle:

Lucy Locket
1st-September-2005, 12:42 AM
ok but................if you go to other certain countries you have to abide by their rules, religions, beliefs, language, no bare flesh on show, no alcohol, no certain meats, celebrate their religious festivals, they stick firmly to their culture & don't make allowances for ours, or very little. It's their country & their way of life & that's how it should be. When in Rome etc etc etc. Why have we given up our way of life?? Why can't we have pictures of our Queen up in the schools?? Why do we have to learn, celebrate other religions?? With all due respect we are a christian country & if any one of us wanted to learn another language or know about another religion we are capable of going to evening classes, of joining another church, temple, mosque etc. Yes it's nice to be taught a little as part of our history lesson but to have it in your face (daily as it is in schools these days) at the cost of our own language, religion, lifestyle is bang out of order. If they choose to live in our country they should live as we do, otherwise stay where they are. I'm sure we would not be treated with such respect in their country, we would have to live in their country in their way.

No disrespect meant by the way.

Robin
1st-September-2005, 01:20 AM
Interesting though, that when the beer drinking english louts go abroad and take their "culture" with them, that some of the countries they visit aren;t particularly happy but rather than be politically correct and "accept" it they are looking to ban it !

hmmm ... more fool us methinks!

Dance Demon
1st-September-2005, 05:57 AM
ok but................if you go to other certain countries you have to abide by their rules, religions, beliefs, language, no bare flesh on show, no alcohol, no certain meats, celebrate their religious festivals, they stick firmly to their culture & don't make allowances for ours, or very little. It's their country & their way of life & that's how it should be. When in Rome etc etc etc. Why have we given up our way of life?? Why can't we have pictures of our Queen up in the schools?? Why do we have to learn, celebrate other religions?? With all due respect we are a christian country & if any one of us wanted to learn another language or know about another religion we are capable of going to evening classes, of joining another church, temple, mosque etc. Yes it's nice to be taught a little as part of our history lesson but to have it in your face (daily as it is in schools these days) at the cost of our own language, religion, lifestyle is bang out of order. If they choose to live in our country they should live as we do, otherwise stay where they are. I'm sure we would not be treated with such respect in their country, we would have to live in their country in their way.

No disrespect meant by the way.

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

Gus
1st-September-2005, 08:37 AM
Coming from a mixed race family .... I agree TOTALY with the sentiment ... if not with the tone :o Aside from failing heavily on the "cricket" test, my mother integrated into the British way of life (even though ther were always some bigoted racist b*****ds around to make that problematic at times). It is the UK culture that makes us what we are. Can you imagine the furore if signicant influx of migrants (be them Eurpopean, Asia or ... God forbid .... English) started to move Scotlands 'culture' away from its proud roots (like giving them a decent football goalkeeper for the national side)!

Tolerance is a two edged sword. There has to be limits and there has to be give and take on both sides. Oh ... little point ... I can understand the feeling of loosing ones culture ... I was walking to a friends house the oether night and in the 10 minute walk I saw about every 'race' under the sun (Greek, Asian, chinese, West Indian, Arab) but only 3 white faces..... who is the ethnic minority now?

(PS ... did you see that we now cant even put up poster on the tube without the ITALIAN migrants getting offended :confused:

El Salsero Gringo
1st-September-2005, 08:51 AM
if any one of us wanted to learn another language... we are capable of going to evening classesSo you don't support the learning of, say, French, Spanish or Italian in schools? Or else which languages are you saying aren't worth learning?

If they choose to live in our country they should live as we do, otherwise stay where they are. I'm sure we would not be treated with such respect in their country, we would have to live in their country in their way.The gaping hole in this argument (so big that perhaps you can't see it) is that the people I suspect you are talking about are British and this is their country. If you are going to show a complete and total disregard for their cultural heritage, why should you expect any for yours in return?

azande
1st-September-2005, 09:02 AM
Coming from a mixed race family .... I agree TOTALY with the sentiment ...
~SNIP~
I can understand the feeling of loosing ones culture ...

:confused: sorry but can't get my head round these two statements in the same post...

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 09:16 AM
Oooh, fight...


Our Country - YOU, the immigrants, have the right - the right to leave !
OK, so that covers, let's see:
- Celts (all that silly blue make-up)
- Romans (and what did they ever do for us, hmmm?)
- Angles (grabbing all the sunloungers)
- Saxons (ditto, plus they're blonde)
- Dubliners (Bloody Irish)
- Norsemen (what is pillaging, anyway?)
- Normans (weirdo French people)
- Jews (talking too much during dance classes)

And then we get to the 20th Century, and find there's, err, nobody left...


We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!
Actually, this is the only part of this loony rant that I can identify with - in my opinion successive UK governments have been shamelessly careless about promoting Enlish language tuition to aid immigrants settle into this country. But I suspect that's not exactly the sentiment behind the statement.


"In God We Trust" is our National Motto.
Is is? I thought it was more like "Come on Flintoff"?


This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.
OK, I'm making a crazy guess that this is indeed not about the UK now... I'm not totally sure who "founded" England, in fact, but I'm guessing it was more founded on vast amounts of blood and gore than principles.


If ST Georges cross offends you, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.
Oh good, that's exactly the sort of thing to post in the cerocscotland forum :grin:

Finally: CAPS and Initial Caps and multiple exclamation marks - the sign of a diseased mind.

El Salsero Gringo
1st-September-2005, 09:33 AM
OK, so that covers, let's see:
- Celts (all that silly blue make-up)
- Romans (and what did they ever do for us, hmmm?)
- Angles (grabbing all the sunloungers)
- Saxons (ditto, plus they're blonde)
- Dubliners (Bloody Irish)
- Norsemen (what is pillaging, anyway?)
- Normans (weirdo French people)
- Jews (talking too much during dance classes)You missed the Huguenots (also wierdo French.)

stewart38
1st-September-2005, 09:34 AM
Oooh, fight...


OK, so that covers, let's see:
- Celts (all that silly blue make-up)
- Romans (and what did they ever do for us, hmmm?)
- Angles (grabbing all the sunloungers)
- Saxons (ditto, plus they're blonde)
- Dubliners (Bloody Irish)
- Norsemen (what is pillaging, anyway?)
- Normans (weirdo French people)
- Jews (talking too much during dance classes)

And then we get to the 20th Century, and find there's, err, nobody left...


Actually, this is the only part of this loony rant that I can identify with - in my opinion successive UK governments have been shamelessly careless about promoting Enlish language tuition to aid immigrants settle into this country. But I suspect that's not exactly the sentiment behind the statement.


Is is? I thought it was more like "Come on Flintoff"?


OK, I'm making a crazy guess that this is indeed not about the UK now... I'm not totally sure who "founded" England, in fact, but I'm guessing it was more founded on vast amounts of blood and gore than principles.


Oh good, that's exactly the sort of thing to post in the cerocscotland forum :grin:

Finally: CAPS and Initial Caps and multiple exclamation marks - the sign of a diseased mind.


The problem is if you cant have a serious debate about this what do you end up with ?

I had a women from Israel at Hammersmith ceroc going on about how crap London was and she wished she could live in New York (they wouldnt let her) .
She had left Israel a few years earlier, I should have told her to go home. Thats not racist or anything all Im saying is stop knocking our country.

I didnt right the above and i made that clear so please dont quote me as if I have ! :mad:

Gus
1st-September-2005, 09:35 AM
:confused: sorry but can't get my head round these two statements in the same post...The decision to move to the UK was my mothers ... though she is still obviously part Jamaican she saw no reason for the UK to change its culture to adopt hers ... though in reality the tolerance of the UK culture is such that it has allowed elements of the Jamaican culture to flourish (e.g. Carnival). Sorry if my posting wasn't that clear. Its a very complex subject and I have a range of views on it, not all compatible. I think my baseline is that if you come to the UK, you have to accepth the UK on its terms and not EXPECT it to move to you. In reality the cross fertilisation can be a very positive thing ... unfortunately it is now threatening our way of life in some areas.

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 09:37 AM
You missed the Huguenots (also wierdo French.)
Oh sure, I missed dozens - I didn't even mention the Welsh, Scots / Picts, Belgae, Dutch, etc. If the Welsh and Irish left, I'd only be 25% here. Cue obvious comeback

Most of that list was just remembered from that lovely board-game "Britannia" - it really brings it home to you how many different peoples have come here over the centuries.

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 09:43 AM
The problem is if you cant have a serious debate about this what do you end up with ?
I've no problems with a serious debate about anything (except possibly what foot to step back on), but that's not a call for a serious debate, that's just a weird mix of US and UK right-wing nutty nationalism.


I had a women from Israel at Hammersmith ceroc going on about how crap London was and she wished she could live in New York (they wouldnt let her) .

She had left Israel a few years earlier, I should have told her to go home.
Obnoxious people aren't confined by nationality - and I see nothing wrong with you telling her to shut up, to move away from London if she doesn't like it, or indeed to sit with the other obnoxious people in the no-row :)


I didnt right the above and i made that clear so please dont quote me as if I have ! :mad:
Well, sure - but without any accompanying comment in the first post, one should presume that you posted it because you agree with some or all of it. If you'd said "Look at this pile of poo", fine, but otherwise...

stewart38
1st-September-2005, 09:48 AM
Well, sure - but without any accompanying comment in the first post, one should presume that you posted it because you agree with some or all of it. If you'd said "Look at this pile of poo", fine, but otherwise...

I thought my comment it doesnt come from me would make sense and its not a pile of poo

Now go to to refusal row for 3 weeks


Any one seen this doing the rounds ??

Note it doesnt originate from me but was interesting
-------------------------------------------


Subject: Fwd: RE: The Right to Leave


United Kingdom - The Right to Leave


, We or it... please forward it to all you know.


-------------------------------------------------------

ducasi
1st-September-2005, 09:56 AM
OK, I'm making a crazy guess that this is indeed not about the UK now... As you and I thought... from a quick google, I've found versions for both America and Australia. From the content, it appears the American one was first – "Our Pledge", "In God We Trust", the listed foreign languages, plus a bit about "First Amendment rights".

It's telling that the people who adapted it were either too ignorant to correctly tailor it for their country, or else they were just being cynical.

Either way... it's a nasty piece of work.

Perhaps in London and England some people feel that their culture is being threatened. I don't think this feeling is as strong in Scotland, and I'm very happy at the recent immigration to Scotland of the "New Europeans" from Eastern Europe... I'd encourage them to learn our language, but even if they don't, their children will.

(Hmm... So-much for me going cold turkey... :()

bigdjiver
1st-September-2005, 10:11 AM
:devil: Right, lets reclaim our culture. We are, allegedly, what we eat, so lets start by closing down all of the Indian, Chinese, Italian, French, Turkish .... (blah, blah) food outlets.:devil:

Gus
1st-September-2005, 10:18 AM
:devil: Right, lets reclaim our culture. We are, allegedly, what we eat, so lets start by closing down all of the Indian, Chinese, Italian, French, Turkish .... (blah, blah) food outlets.:devil:Our 'culture' has tradiitonaly been freedom of expression ... however that has been curtailed many times by immigrant 'cultures' finding things offesnsive ... remember the violence that was used by the Sikh community to prevent a play in Birmingham? That type of 'lack of tolerance' is just a reprehensible as the NF / Monday Club scum.

El Salsero Gringo
1st-September-2005, 10:26 AM
Our 'culture' has tradiitonaly been freedom of expression ... however that has been curtailed many times by immigrant 'cultures' finding things offesnsive ... remember the violence that was used by the Sikh community to prevent a play in Birmingham? That type of 'lack of tolerance' is just a reprehensible as the NF / Monday Club scum.That's a lousy example. The play was put on deliberately with the intention of raising a mob and generating publicity for the playwright and the theatre. They could have continued with the staging after all. If you write a playscript that's deliberately offensive then you have to allow people to express their opinions about it.

Most examples of your 'many' times are better as examples of extreme fringe elements on one side or the other attempting to distort the debate by playing up to the fears of Daily Mail reading Britain. Much of which is alive and well and posting on the Ceroc Scotland Forum, I see.

Gus
1st-September-2005, 10:47 AM
That's a lousy example. The play was put on deliberately with the intention of raising a mob and generating publicity for the playwright and the theatre. They could have continued with the staging after all. If you write a playscript that's deliberately offensive then you have to allow people to express their opinions about it.Hey ... welcome to the UK .... something being offensive does not give me the right to commit violence. A vast number of Catholics were appalled and angered by the Life of Brian and a number of other films (one including the seduction of JC himself). I dont remember fires in the street over those. And how the heck do you define offensive. The play was based on true events if I remember correctly.

Other true events relate to a family being ostracised from their community because the daughter was raped by a friend of the family and they went to the police ... instead of letting the 'elders' cover the whole thing up. Would you answer differ if the 'community' in question was Muslim or Jewish?

El Salsero Gringo
1st-September-2005, 10:53 AM
Hey ... welcome to the UK .... something being offensive does not give me the right to commit violence. A vast number of Catholics were appalled and angered by the Life of Brian and a number of other films (one including the seduction of JC himself). I dont remember fires in the street over those. And how the heck do you define offensive. The play was based on true events if I remember correctly.

Other true events relate to a family being ostracised from their community because the daughter was raped by a friend of the family and they went to the police ... instead of letting the 'elders' cover the whole thing up. Would you answer differ if the 'community' in question was Muslim or Jewish?The offence was caused because the rape scene was portrayed as happening in the holiest part of a Sikh temple. This was not part of the allegedly true events, nor was it integral to the plot. It was done deliberately because it would inflame people.

I certainly don't condone violence. But neither do I condone people deliberately provoking violence in the name of 'free speech' when they should know better.

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 11:14 AM
That's a lousy example. The play was put on deliberately with the intention of raising a mob and generating publicity for the playwright and the theatre.
I think that's a little strong.

The play "Behzti" (dishonour) was indeed highly provocative, and arguably insulting to Sikhism. And certainly some playwrights and theatres want to generate publicity for controversial plays.

But then, it was no more so than "The Satanic Verses", "The last temptation of Christ" and "Jerry Springer: the musical". All of which were permitted in the UK.

The Behzti thing did leave a bit of a sour taste in the mouth - there's a difference between peaceful protests and mobs storming a theatre, between demonstrations and death threats which force the author to go into hiding.

In my opinion, the Birmingham police lost their bottle - by ordering the theatre to stop showing the play on public safety grounds, they proved that if you get vehement and violent enough, you can censor something you don't like.

Salman Rushdie, a man who knows a thing or two about this area, said "It is pretty terrible to hear government ministers expressing approval of the ban and failing to condemn the violence when they should be supporting freedom of expression"


They could have continued with the staging after all.
I'm not sure if that's true - I understand the police said they couldn't guarantee safety, which had implications for the liability of the theatre - so from a legal point of view, they may have had little choice.


If you write a playscript that's deliberately offensive then you have to allow people to express their opinions about it.
Absolutely. But violence and death threats cross the line.

bigdjiver
1st-September-2005, 12:12 PM
...Absolutely. But violence and death threats cross the line... and meanwhile, in Iraq, we are imposing a western system of choosing their leadership ....

Gus
1st-September-2005, 12:25 PM
.. and meanwhile, in Iraq, we are imposing a western system of choosing their leadership ....
Aye ... a real hardship, the recognition of the right of an individual to choose how they are governed rather than being under the boot of the gang of hoodlums with the most firepower ... a real corruption of their liberties :rolleyes:

Seriously though, commenting on the Iraq situtaion seems to have little bearing on the culture/tolerance debate that I thought this thread was about? Two wrongs don't make a right etc. old boy.

Robin
1st-September-2005, 12:33 PM
Aye ... a real hardship, the recognition of the right of an individual to choose how they are governed rather than being under the boot of the gang of hoodlums with the most firepower ... a real corruption of their liberties :rolleyes:


ermmm ... and we choose how we are governed ? seems to be that at least they have some say in whats evolving - ie they are putting everything in to the pot and some things - ie the sunni bit is being held off for a couple of years so they can sort of suck it and see.

Strikes me that over here everything is a bit skewif at the moment - I thought that the concept of Parliament was that the House of Commons was supposed to be about the rights of the people (ie protecting them from the "Lords") - it strikes me that is what the House of Lords does against the House of Commons!

--------------
[Fake sig] stirring things up

Daisy Chain
1st-September-2005, 12:40 PM
Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.

And the most British thing of all ? Suspicion of anything foreign.

Daisy

(Un French Fleur)

azande
1st-September-2005, 12:47 PM
Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.

And the most British thing of all ? Suspicion of anything foreign.

Daisy

(Un French Fleur)
You forgot fish and chips made by italians ;)

Graham
1st-September-2005, 01:29 PM
I think the key issue in this debate is the split between public and private cultural freedoms. For example, a certain shopping centre recently chose to ban "hoodies". In my opinion they would be well within their rights to also refuse entry to someone wearing a burkka, and no doubt some would interpret this as religious intolerance. In my opinion it is a part of European culture that the face is not normally covered, and that people who do cover their faces are regarded with suspicion. Obviously I have no objection to people covering their faces on religious grounds, but I feel that if they choose to live in Europe they have to accept that this practice may disadvantage them, in just the same way as youngsters are perfectly at liberty to decide whether or not to wear hoodies. They therefore have private cultural freedom, but in public must accept whatever restrictions are imposed by the host culture.

El Salsero Gringo
1st-September-2005, 01:34 PM
They therefore have private cultural freedom, but in public must accept whatever restrictions are imposed by the host culture.What if the host culture said that people who wore head-scarves, or turbans, or skull-caps were not allowed to hold public office? Or earn as much as people who didn't? Or not allowed to work at all? Are *all* restrictions by host cultures acceptable?

stewart38
1st-September-2005, 01:52 PM
:devil: Right, lets reclaim our culture. We are, allegedly, what we eat, so lets start by closing down all of the Indian, Chinese, Italian, French, Turkish .... (blah, blah) food outlets.:devil:

whats that got to do with the price of eggs ?

I think its aimed more along these lines

-------------------------------------------------

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has taken further steps to exclude and deport 'preachers of hate' with the publication of a list of unacceptable types of behaviour.
Mr Clarke set out the Government's final criteria to crack down on those who stir up hatred following a two-week consultation.

"One of the things that is stopping us is the court cases under the European Convention of Human Rights, that says that no matter how dangerous an individual is to the UK, if there is any chance of him being harmed when being sent back to his country of origin, you simply can't do it.

"I think as a country you have to have got to have the right to say to people who may threaten this country, I am sorry you can't come and we are going to deport you."
-----------------------------------

ie if you dont like it here go :mad:

KatieR
1st-September-2005, 02:02 PM
What about Australians? Given that most of the English complain that we are taking over HOWEVER, as you all so love to remind us we are all technically English anyway (just not respectable ones!)

stewart38
1st-September-2005, 02:07 PM
What about Australians? Given that most of the English complain that we are taking over HOWEVER, as you all so love to remind us we are all technically English anyway (just not respectable ones!)

I have nothing against them. Apart from one I work with who constanly goes on how crap England is , so why is she here ? :whistle:

Gus
1st-September-2005, 02:08 PM
What if the host culture said that people who wore head-scarves, or turbans, or skull-caps were not allowed to hold public office? Or earn as much as people who didn't? Or not allowed to work at all? Are *all* restrictions by host cultures acceptable?There is a line of logic that pervades thisn thread that says if you dont like it here. .... GO. I'm not sure that I would go with that line of thought totally ... BUT, say human sacrifice was totaly acceptable in your culture and you wanted to carry on with your religious beliefs here ..... the question is where do you draw the line?

KatieR
1st-September-2005, 02:12 PM
I have nothing against them. Apart from one I work with who constanly goes on how crap England is , so why is she here ? :whistle:

I have to say that attitude really hacks me off as well. I would tell her to go home as well. Personally I love it over here, I quite like the cold, I like the fact that you can see snow at Christmas, I love the fact that you have more people in Camden alone than we do in the whole of South Australia, It doesn't take 3 days in a car to drive anywhere, you cant die if a spider or snake bites you.

There is a small group of people in OZ however do believe the same things as your post, that if you dont learn the language leave, and all that, but if all the immigrants left, Australia would have a total population of about 3.

Graham
1st-September-2005, 02:22 PM
What if the host culture said that people who wore head-scarves, or turbans, or skull-caps were not allowed to hold public office? Or earn as much as people who didn't? Or not allowed to work at all? Are *all* restrictions by host cultures acceptable?
Let me answer a slightly different question first. If you had asked if it was okay to prohibit the wearing of such items by people in public service, then I would say yes, it would be reasonable to stipulate what people in public service (or indeed in private employment) wear whilst working. Holding public office is a little more complicated because the line between public and private life is less distinct, so in that case I would say that it may be unacceptable to prevent people who wore head-scarves, or turbans, or skull-caps from taking public office.

It's not just clothing, of course - prayer breaks are another example. If an employee can agree this with an employer then great, but I don't think employers should be forced to come to an arrangement any more than they should be forced to give people smoking breaks.

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 03:14 PM
Of the people who are British (whatever that means) who preach hate against non-UK born people (normally non-white) who live in the UK, and contribute more than UK-born layabouts, where do you deport those hate-peddlers people to?

Someone who lives in the UK with an English father and a French mother, and an Irish grand-father and a Jewish great-great-grandmother who complains about the weather or the state of the railways, where do you send them "back" to?

What kind of Britishness - or Englishness(*) - do you want people to adhere to? Morris Dancing? Pipe smoking and tank-top cardigans? Boiled meat and boiled root vegetables?

Also, I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to measure the amount of intolerance in each country? Much argument contains - well if I went to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia I would have to behave exactly as them. Is that true? How would you measure it?

Otherwise I broadly agree with the sentiments that if you choose to live in a country don't try to maintain a separateness from it. However, I like the contrast of London, Turks and Greeks in Green Lanes, Jews in Stamford Hill, Indians in Wembley, Irish in Brondesbury and Queens Park. But also Irish in Green Lanes, Jews in Wembley, Indians in Queens Park, Turks and Greeks in Finchley. Distinct and mixed.



Clive

(*) Do the Scots have a clearer, more coherent sense of national identity? I know someone who escaped Dundee because of the shared values of the Dundonian middle-class.

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 03:26 PM
Seriously though, commenting on the Iraq situtaion seems to have little bearing on the culture/tolerance debate that I thought this thread was about? Two wrongs don't make a right etc. old boy.
:yeah:
Amazingly enough, there are other things going on in the world than bloody Iraq, let's not drive it into every conversation about politics.

Also, bigdjiver, please don't make me agree with Gus, I'm sure it's morally wrong to do so... :tears:


What about Australians? Given that most of the English complain that we are taking over HOWEVER, as you all so love to remind us we are all technically English anyway (just not respectable ones!)
OK, now I'm completely lost - who said anything about taking over? Or being technically English? And what's "technically English" anyway? :confused:

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 03:32 PM
<< snip >>
We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!
<< snip >>

So which forum posters are up for deportation for failing that test?

CRL

stewart38
1st-September-2005, 03:36 PM
Someone who lives in the UK with an English father and a French mother, and an Irish grand-father and a Jewish great-great-grandmother who complains about the weather or the state of the railways, where do you send them "back" to?



No you miss the point :sad:

If they DIDNT complain about the state of the railways or the weather then you would send them back

The vast majority of people do moan about the sate of the railways and weather and it would only be the 'odd' people who didnt and hence the need to send those 'odd' people back.

Lets assume you still wanted to send above person back for 'moaning' the solution seems simple as France I assume has a better railway system and weather then us send them there. They would be happy as the would have less to winge about in their mothers home country

On serious note I think some people are missing the point.

MartinHarper
1st-September-2005, 03:55 PM
No i do not agree with it all

Which bits do you agree with?

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 04:00 PM
No you miss the point :sad:

If they DIDNT complain about the state of the railways or the weather then you would send them back

The vast majority of people do moan about the sate of the railways and weather and it would only be the 'odd' people who didnt and hence the need to send those 'odd' people back.

Lets assume you still wanted to send above person back for 'moaning' the solution seems simple as France I assume has a better railway system and weather then us send them there. They would be happy as the would have less to winge about in their mothers home country

On serious note I think some people are missing the point.

Stewart why do you do this?

Everytime I think you are really narrow and simple-minded you drop in a jewel of wit to show you are not.

:rofl:

CRL

LMC
1st-September-2005, 04:07 PM
IMO, the two biggest issues are:

1) The media in this country are incredibly irresponsible in their reporting. As long as it sells, they seem quite happy to use the terms "asylum seeker" "refugee" "bogus immigrant" "economic migrant" interchangeably. One day they are yelling about political correctness gone mad, the next they are outraged at the culturally insensitive statutory authority that has insisted on correct health and safety procedures like a hard hat, which discriminates against people in turbans. The tabloid press and even some respected sources such as the BBC are frequently emotional and inflammatory, blowing up out of all proportion isolated incidents such as those cited in Stewart's post (source please Stewart?).

2) Government and statutory agencies are more interested in public opinion than justice - they try to please all of the people all of the time (hence such things as allowing a fully covered face ID photo, which I agree is ludicrous). Unfortunately, that public opinion is expressed by the media, particularly the Daily Mail, Sun and Mirror, which IIRC are the three most popular daily papers. It's about time that our elected leadership showed some consistency instead of feebly giving in to whoever shouts loudest.

stewart38
1st-September-2005, 05:16 PM
IMO, the two biggest issues are:

1) The media in this country are incredibly irresponsible in their reporting. As long as it sells, they seem quite happy to use the terms "asylum seeker" "refugee" "bogus immigrant" "economic migrant" interchangeably. One day they are yelling about political correctness gone mad, the next they are outraged at the culturally insensitive statutory authority that has insisted on correct health and safety procedures like a hard hat, which discriminates against people in turbans. The tabloid press and even some respected sources such as the BBC are frequently emotional and inflammatory, blowing up out of all proportion isolated incidents such as those cited in Stewart's post (source please Stewart?).

2) Government and statutory agencies are more interested in public opinion than justice - they try to please all of the people all of the time (hence such things as allowing a fully covered face ID photo, which I agree is ludicrous). Unfortunately, that public opinion is expressed by the media, particularly the Daily Mail, Sun and Mirror, which IIRC are the three most popular daily papers. It's about time that our elected leadership showed some consistency instead of feebly giving in to whoever shouts loudest.

Welcome to the forum !!!

you may find some of the issues discussed a bit beyond you ,but a nice try for a NEW KID .. :mad:

Graham
1st-September-2005, 05:42 PM
Unless I've missed it, nobody seems to have picked up on the point that the original piece about photo ID is almost certainly apocryphal, since Birmingham City Council do not issue driving licences.

KatieR
1st-September-2005, 08:28 PM
OK, now I'm completely lost - who said anything about taking over? Or being technically English? And what's "technically English" anyway? :confused:

Im constantly being reminded by English friends that Australians are nothing but English convict descendants... Although to describe my heritage I am nothing more than a mutt. I have an Australian born mother and grandmother who were descended from a well known slave trader in New South Wales (my claim to fame is that Townsville is named after my relies...) and on my dads side I am Russian and Polish Jew with a German Grandmother.... go figure!

Baruch
1st-September-2005, 11:52 PM
This idea of London being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Britons, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.
CultureS, societieS, languageS......


We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!
Er... which language would that be, then? How about Welsh, which has been spoken here far longer than English? Or Gaelic? It always gets to me when politicians talk about making it compulsory for immigrants to learn English. What about someone from Patagonia who is bilingual in Spanish and Welsh? Would they be allowed to come and live in Wales on the basis of speaking our language? Or is our language not good enough for these people? Never mind discrimination against immigrants, there's discrimination against the natives here too.


If ST Georges cross offends you, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.
Come on over to Wales. We're more into red dragons here.

And why, oh why does a certain class of people always equate British with English? There are two other countries making up Great Britain besides England.

Personally, I say live and let live. If someone wants to practise their own religion, culture, or whatever in this country, that's fine by me. As long as they don't expect me to change my own way of life to accommodate them, I have no problem with extending them the same courtesy.

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 11:58 PM
Im constantly being reminded by English friends that Australians are nothing but English convict descendants...
:eek: Really weird definition of "friends" you have there.


Although to describe my heritage I am nothing more than a mutt.
Well, good grief - who isn't? Honestly, ditch the "friends", girl...

Graham
2nd-September-2005, 10:51 AM
How about Welsh, which has been spoken here far longer than English?
So has Latin. I think the point about learning English is not so much to sideline other native languages as to question whether we should really be spending public funds to translate official documents into numerous other non-native languages such as Urdu, Swahili, Cantonese, etc.

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-September-2005, 11:08 AM
So has Latin. I think the point about learning English is not so much to sideline other native languages as to question whether we should really be spending public funds to translate official documents into numerous other non-native languages such as Urdu, Swahili, Cantonese, etc.Absolutely we should. The London Borough of Camden (where I live) has a large number of residents who don't read or write English sufficiently well to be able to communicate with their local authority in that language. It's totally right and proper that these citizens who pay council tax to and vote in LB Camden should enjoy equal access to council amenities, publications and facilities. Public authorities have no mandate to disenfranchise residents or force them to learn English before they can find out on what day their domestic rubbish is to be collected.

stewart38
2nd-September-2005, 11:20 AM
And why, oh why does a certain class of people always equate British with English? There are two other countries making up Great Britain besides England.

.

why stop at Great Britain lets have the united kingdom or the British Isle or the EU or the World. Im still English but im happy for my scottish friends to stay in scotland and pop in here any time :wink:

the point of the message i thought (and remember i didnt write it) was basically if you dont like it p*** Off


whats that got to do with translating docs of course they should but if someone after 35yrs of living in this country cant speak a word of English I think thats wrong

I sure lots of ex pats in spain dont speak spanish either but thats different , English is the worlds language (bring it on :yeah: )

David Bailey
2nd-September-2005, 11:24 AM
Absolutely we should. The London Borough of Camden (where I live) has a large number of residents who don't read or write English sufficiently well to be able to communicate with their local authority in that language. It's totally right and proper that these citizens who pay council tax to and vote in LB Camden should enjoy equal access to council amenities, publications and facilities. Public authorities have no mandate to disenfranchise residents or force them to learn English before they can find out on what day their domestic rubbish is to be collected.
Whilst I :yeah: in general to this statement, I also wonder what the lower limit is? I mean, presumably if only 1 person from (random country) Tuvalu was living and working in Camden, it'd be dumb to try to translate everything into Tuvalese or whatever?

Is there a percentage limit? And if so, percentage of what? Residents? Council-tax-paying residents? Workers in the area? Transients?

On a more general note, I don't believe it's unreasonable to promote education of British culture, including the language, to immigrants, simply because that will help them adjust to living in a new country. Of course, there's a big difference between promoting this and mandating it, but surely expecing some degree of assimilation isn't unreasonable?

Perhaps I should start reading the Mail...

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-September-2005, 11:30 AM
Whilst I :yeah: in general to this statement, I also wonder what the lower limit is? I mean, presumably if only 1 person from (random country) Tuvalu was living and working in Camden, it'd be dumb to try to translate everything into Tuvalese or whatever?Of course it would. There's probably an office in Camden Town Hall calculating the requirements right now...
Is there a percentage limit? And if so, percentage of what? Residents? Council-tax-paying residents? Workers in the area? Transients?Dunno, but I bet someone at the council does.
On a more general note, I don't believe it's unreasonable to promote education of British culture, including the language, to immigrants, simply because that will help them adjust to living in a new country. Of course, there's a big difference between promoting this and mandating it, but surely expecing some degree of assimilation isn't unreasonable?

Perhaps I should start reading the Mail...Not yet. To hope for and expect most immigrants to get to grips with the 'culture' and the English language is fair enough. To penalize those that don't, isn't.

stewart38
2nd-September-2005, 11:30 AM
I sure lots of ex pats in spain dont speak spanish either but thats different , English is the worlds language (bring it on :yeah: )



This was a joke but not very funny :sad:

LMC
2nd-September-2005, 11:31 AM
On a more general note, I don't believe it's unreasonable to promote education of British culture, including the language, to immigrants, simply because that will help them adjust to living in a new country. Of course, there's a big difference between promoting this and mandating it, but surely expecing some degree of assimilation isn't unreasonable?

Perhaps I should start reading the Mail...
No, that is perfectly reasonable. The irony is that regulations don't "help" - once asylum seekers are here they are not allowed to legally work (and therefore contribute to the local economy), take advantage of non-statutory education (so if they aren't in primary or secondary school, exactly how are they supposed to learn all this stuff?) and are starting from an underdog position because there is a general assumption that they are bad people. Whatever the thoughts on volumes of immigrants, whether immigration should be allowed, etc etc etc - once they are here, wouldn't it make sense to invest something in integrating them, rather than excluding them (which results in a MUCH bigger net cost to us all).

The frustration in many of the asylum seekers I have come into contact with ... they WANT to work, they WANT to be part of society - but they are often fighting a losing battle. I quoted the ICAR website above - some of it makes very disturbing reading. (www.icar.org.uk)

Baby Peaches
2nd-September-2005, 11:46 AM
I am an ex-pat in Norway and I don't get my mail etc sent to me in english. I chose to live in this country, and whilst there are plenty of things that hack me off about the place i.e. their politics :angry: (this is the last communist state I think) I believe that I have to adapt to the culture here. When going into a shop I ask politely if they speak english (luckily most do) and if they don't then I still manage to communicate by pointing out things or using the little norwegian I do know. (I know, lived here for 5 years and should be fluent by now). :blush:

No matter where you live in the world, someone will always moan about things. In Norway it's the price of everything (5 quid for a glass of wine...nightmare :whistle: ) but we should look past the crappy things and look at the positives :clap: . Norway is a beautiful place, safe for my kids, a much healthier country to live in due to the lifestyle but at the same time Scotland will always be home!! :cheers:

As I have said to other expats who whinge all the time, "you choose to be here". :yeah:

Shaz.xx

David Bailey
2nd-September-2005, 12:14 PM
Dunno
:eek: :confused: :sick: :tears: :sad:
But ... you know everything...

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-September-2005, 01:32 PM
Our Country - YOU, the immigrants, have the right - the right to leave !
After many cities not wanting to offend other cultures by putting up Xmas lights!!!!!
After hearing that the Birmingham council changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered!!!!!
The above was the final straw in many bureaucratic changes of gross stupidity over the past few years & prompted this editorial, written by a UK citizen, to be published in a British tabloid newspaper.

Which newspaper would publish this ? it looks like a rehash of the typical pro-christian America email that circulates now and again. They've not even rewritten it to remove the specifically American bits. A badly written and then ripped of piece of text is hardly going to stengthen your case. Even in this first bit, as Graham pointed out, they cant even get their facts straight. The DVLA handle driving licences, not Birmingham City Council. Which cities did not put up Xmas lights so as not to offend other cultures. Certainly every single city in Scotland put up lights.



We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!

Actually we speak Welsh, Cornish and Gaelic too. In fact on some of the Islands and North of Scotland, Gaelic is the 1st langauge - English is not learnt till the children go to school. I imagine its the same of Wales too.
I've heard this quote many times usually by right wing American nutters "If you cant speak the language, get out of the country". Its especially funny because of the relatively young age of America as a nation and its diverse culture and language. Not only do you Native American languages, nearly half of Americans can speak Spanish.


"In God We Trust" is our National Motto.

No it isn't. Its not even the National Motto of America where they do actually have this motto printed on money. Many Americans are campaigning to get it removed from notes, just as they are campaigning to remove "under god" from the pledge of allegience. Some of those Americans are Christians too.



This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.

Only in the scrawlings in crayon on the padded cell that this writer clearly lives in. This again sounds like its referring to America. The only problem is the founding fathers were not all Christian and were very secular in their way of thinking. Not only that but U.S. society at that time was far more left wing than it is now Many Christians were socialists. The Christian right in America try and claim that the founding fathers thought like they did, but nothing could be further from the truth. As for Britain. Nothing was "founded" an Island of tribes coagulated into countries who warred with each other and eventually agreed to stop it. er...thats hardly "founded". Northern Ireland still has a bit of a problem with the "stopping it" bit but lets hope the peace process holds.



It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture.

Again an American statement. "In God we tust" in schools. I've never heard of that. How lazy is the person who "wrote" this. Britain is a very secular nation and has a very low rate of Church goers.


If ST Georges cross offends you, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

The St.Georges cross! Replace "Stars and Stripes" wth the wrong flag why don't you. I reckon if the person who "wrote" this doesnt even know what the British flag is, they should seriously consider moving to another part of the planet. Although there may be an argument against them being from this planet at all!



We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change. Try understand, we really don't care how you did things where you came from.

Disclaimer should read: For "we" read "me and my imaginary friend Buster the Bunny"


This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and if you are prepared to integrate honourably, we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

Yeah, Ill bet he would. :rofl:


But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great British freedom,
"THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".

Our pledge? Hang on..thats American isnt it. Lazy, lazy, lazy. What happened to the great British insitution of writing your own original bigoted material ? :)



I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends (and enemies) it will also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try, please.
No matter how many times you receive it... please forward it to all you know.


Shame on you Stewart38 for posting this in the first place! Encouraging bigoted spam mail will not make you many friends. Whats wrong with starting a topic on immigration with a comment of your own.



The problem is if you cant have a serious debate about this what do you end up with ?


To have a serious debate you need to start with something sensible to debate over. The original post is absolute nonsense. I would picture a debate based on the material in your original quote to be sort of like a mad hatters tea party with bits of food being thrown, farting, and surreal comments about the colour of the letter Q. Maybe thats just me though.



I didnt right the above and i made that clear so please dont quote me as if I have !

But reading between the lines it sounds as if you at least partly support it. So why shouldnt we reply to you? (And right=write I take it? submit yourself for an Englishness test forthwith :) )



Note it doesnt originate from me but was interesting

Interesting? b0ll0cks more like :)

Rebecca
2nd-September-2005, 01:45 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

*Cue rapturous applause*

stewart38
2nd-September-2005, 01:48 PM
Which newspaper would publish this ? it looks like a rehash of the typical pro-christian America email that circulates now and again. They've not even rewritten it to remove the specifically American bits. A badly written and then ripped of piece of text is hardly going to stengthen your case. Even in this first bit, as Graham pointed out, they cant even get their facts straight. The DVLA handle driving licences, not Birmingham City Council. Which cities did not put up Xmas lights so as not to offend other cultures. Certainly every single city in Scotland put up lights.



Actually we speak Welsh, Cornish and Gaelic too. In fact on some of the Islands and North of Scotland, Gaelic is the 1st langauge - English is not learnt till the children go to school. I imagine its the same of Wales too.
I've heard this quote many times usually by right wing American nutters "If you cant speak the language, get out of the country". Its especially funny because of the relatively young age of America as a nation and its diverse culture and language. Not only do you Native American languages, nearly half of Americans can speak Spanish.



No it isn't. Its not even the National Motto of America where they do actually have this motto printed on money. Many Americans are campaigning to get it removed from notes, just as they are campaigning to remove "under god" from the pledge of allegience. Some of those Americans are Christians too.



Only in the scrawlings in crayon on the padded cell that this writer clearly lives in. This again sounds like its referring to America. The only problem is the founding fathers were not all Christian and were very secular in their way of thinking. Not only that but U.S. society at that time was far more left wing than it is now Many Christians were socialists. The Christian right in America try and claim that the founding fathers thought like they did, but nothing could be further from the truth. As for Britain. Nothing was "founded" an Island of tribes coagulated into countries who warred with each other and eventually agreed to stop it. er...thats hardly "founded". Northern Ireland still has a bit of a problem with the "stopping it" bit but lets hope the peace process holds.



Again an American statement. "In God we tust" in schools. I've never heard of that. How lazy is the person who "wrote" this. Britain is a very secular nation and has a very low rate of Church goers.



The St.Georges cross! Replace "Stars and Stripes" wth the wrong flag why don't you. I reckon if the person who "wrote" this doesnt even know what the British flag is, they should seriously consider moving to another part of the planet. Although there may be an argument against them being from this planet at all!



Disclaimer should read: For "we" read "me and my imaginary friend Buster the Bunny"



Yeah, Ill bet he would. :rofl:



Our pledge? Hang on..thats American isnt it. Lazy, lazy, lazy. What happened to the great British insitution of writing your own original bigoted material ? :)



Shame on you Stewart38 for posting this in the first place! Encouraging bigoted spam mail will not make you many friends. Whats wrong with starting a topic on immigration with a comment of your own.



To have a serious debate you need to start with something sensible to debate over. The original post is absolute nonsense. I would picture a debate based on the material in your original quote to be sort of like a mad hatters tea party with bits of food being thrown, farting, and surreal comments about the colour of the letter Q. Maybe thats just me though.



But reading between the lines it sounds as if you at least partly support it. So why shouldnt we reply to you? (And right=write I take it? submit yourself for an Englishness test forthwith :) )



Interesting? b0ll0cks more like :)


Ok lets ASSUME you dont agree with the statement why shouldn't it be published in a free country . :yeah: Its only a set of ideas some i like some i find offensive but its not my job to censor

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-September-2005, 03:20 PM
Ok lets ASSUME you dont agree with the statement why shouldn't it be published in a free country . :yeah: Its only a set of ideas some i like some i find offensive but its not my job to censor

Its not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing, the original statement is utter nonsense. People publish nonsense all the time of course and, quite rightly, they are not censored as they would be in some countries.

My issue is your original post suggesting there was any ideas worth mentioning in it. There aren't. If you can come up with an example of the DVLA allowing a muslim woman to hide her face in a picture with some sort of source, then we can talk about it. :)

Dance Demon
2nd-September-2005, 03:43 PM
Stewart why do you do this?

Everytime I think you are really narrow and simple-minded you drop in a jewel of wit to show you are not.

:rofl:

CRL

Is " Jewel of wit" rhyming slang for.............something else :whistle: :whistle:

azande
2nd-September-2005, 04:33 PM
Is " Jewel of wit" rhyming slang for.............something else

:rofl:

stewart38
2nd-September-2005, 04:34 PM
Its not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing, the original statement is utter nonsense. People publish nonsense all the time of course and, quite rightly, they are not censored as they would be in some countries.

My issue is your original post suggesting there was any ideas worth mentioning in it. There aren't. If you can come up with an example of the DVLA allowing a muslim woman to hide her face in a picture with some sort of source, then we can talk about it. :)


Noted none of it worths a mention its all ****

Rebecca
2nd-September-2005, 04:38 PM
Noted none of it worths a mention its all ****

To be fair (in the interests of peacemaking), it has been worth nearly 70 mentions and over 700 views, so . . . . . . :rolleyes:

stewart38
2nd-September-2005, 04:41 PM
To be fair (in the interests of peacemaking), it has been worth nearly 70 mentions and over 700 views, so . . . . . . :rolleyes:

I dont like being call a **** just because I posted somthing I NEVER said was my idea or agreed with it (all of it) and it did generate different ideas

To pretend the whole thing was a pile of crap and should never have been posted well... :sad:

Rebecca
2nd-September-2005, 04:44 PM
I dont like being call a **** just because I posted somthing I NEVER said was my idea or agreed with it (all of it) and it did generate different ideas

To pretend the whole thing was a pile of crap and should never have been posted well... :sad:


I was trying to be supportive :flower:

stewart38
2nd-September-2005, 04:45 PM
I was trying to be supportive :flower:


thanks

Clive Long
2nd-September-2005, 04:53 PM
I dont like being call a **** just because I posted somthing I NEVER said was my idea or agreed with it (all of it) and it did generate different ideas

To pretend the whole thing was a pile of crap and should never have been posted well... :sad:
What would have been more useful, I feel, is if you had posted the diatribe and at the same time offered your opinion on the "ideas / prejudices" within it and your reasons / experiences for holding such views, that would have generated less antagonism towards you - because many people , me for example, felt you held these views.

As it is, I think the temperature of the forum has been taken.

Clive

Rebecca
2nd-September-2005, 04:56 PM
I would be interested, however Stewart, in your input to Clive's poll on whether the content of threads have altered your views at all (although not targetted at this thread it seems appropriate).

You do appear to have retreated from some of the original opinions expressed on this thread, perhaps because of the impressive counter-arguements presented here?? Would that be fair to say?

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-September-2005, 05:06 PM
If you can come up with an example of the DVLA allowing a muslim woman to hide her face in a picture with some sort of source, then we can talk about it. :)This is what the UK Passport Office has to say about it:
The photographs must show:
{snip}
# your full head, without any head covering, unless it is worn for religious beliefs or medical reasons;And the example photos are below (just two out of many, but I selected the relevant ones.)

The DVLA website says that photographs must be a "recent and true likeness, showing the full face, with no hat, helmet or sunglasses, although you can wear everyday glasses."

Baruch
2nd-September-2005, 05:15 PM
So has Latin. I think the point about learning English is not so much to sideline other native languages as to question whether we should really be spending public funds to translate official documents into numerous other non-native languages such as Urdu, Swahili, Cantonese, etc.
Welsh is a native language, and unlike Latin, it's still very much a living community language.

Mary
2nd-September-2005, 11:41 PM
:yeah: to DS who is far more eloquent than I. However, I will put in my bit of shrapnel.

It would appear that the original quote that Stewart38 submitted for comment comes across as an unashamed piece of propaganda.

In the American context, most white americans are descendants of the early colonists - so what happened to the rights and opinions of the indigenous native americans?

In the Austalian context (and correct me if I am wrong) the white australians are mostly descendants of ex-convicts shipped out to Oz (no offence - just remember my hazy recollection of history lessons), what are the rights and opinions of the antipodean indigenous population.

And as for the British context - well the white anglo-saxons are also a mish-mash of cultures as pointed out by David James. I gather I am of Celtic origin as it happens.

It would appear that history has a habit of repeating itself, and is continuing to do so today.

This may be a naff analogy, but if you take a familiar recipe, then try adding a herb or spice which you discover improves the flavour then surely that is a result. And one can mix and match certain flavours and create new and interesting results and often improve the original recipe.

However,if the core ingredient is changed - for example using minced lamb instead of minced beef then it starts to become a different dish altogether. (Please all absorb this as it's about as profound as I get!!!)

I can appreciate the sentiments expressed in this thread, buts lets take a step back and look at a more global approach (and I don't just mean geographically).

I too got a little hot under the collar when I had a small party where I paid for some caterers to do a finger buffet kind of thing. There were some guests who were muslim, and some who were vegetarian, christian, atheist, whatever (OK so I know vegetarianism is not a religion). One of the dishes contained pork, so I made clear which dishes contained meat, pork, fish etc. (because of allergies, religious constraints and so on). One couple were so outraged that they left because pork was one of the ingredients in a dish it was suggested they would prefer to avoid.

If I was the hostess in a country where the culture was predominantly muslim, I would appreciate the insult taken. However, I was hostess in my own home, in my native born country, so I was the one who felt insulted, as I was trying to accommodate a variety of people.

Whilst one does not want to give offence lets get real here. If I had unwittingly offered a dish to a nut allergy sufferer knowing that the chances are it contained some kind of nut oil I may have killed them! Now, that, to me is serious. But has nothing to do with ethnic, religious, moral, faddish backgrounds.

Progress, good or bad, is inevitable, but maybe along the way we can somehow come up with some great recipes that eliminates the bad stuff (whatever that may be) and utilises the good stuff, wherever it may come from.

Crikey, I'm think I'm beginning to sound a bit too evangelical. Bye!

M

Dreadful Scathe
3rd-September-2005, 11:46 AM
This is what the UK Passport Office has to say about it:And the example photos are below (just two out of many, but I selected the relevant ones.)

So a NO to face being covered then. Proves the lie of the original post. Can anyone find a source for all the cities who didn't put up Xmas decorations? (or..er..not as the case mat be :) )



Noted none of its worth mentioning

The original post is obviously a rip off of an American right wing rabble rousing piece of tosh. The general topic of immigration is a very good one to talk about, but rather than presenting that you posted what you did. Can't you see the problem ? Perhaps its like posting Mein Kampf as a introduction to the German language - the way it is written and what it is about is bound to come up!

Lynn
3rd-September-2005, 01:11 PM
Which newspaper would publish this ? it looks like a rehash of the typical pro-christian America email that circulates now and again. They've not even rewritten it to remove the specifically American bits. ... Which cities did not put up Xmas lights so as not to offend other cultures. Certainly every single city in Scotland put up lights.If it is then they are equally confused. Putting lights up at Christmas is actually a pagan pre-Christian tradition (as are 'Christmas' trees). So not putting them up would not offend a Christian believer. Calling Christmas 'Xmas' would.

stewart38
3rd-September-2005, 02:29 PM
. Which cities did not put up Xmas lights so as not to offend other cultures. Certainly every single city in Scotland put up lights.

)

try slough to name but one

LMC
3rd-September-2005, 02:38 PM
Which cities did not put up Xmas lights so as not to offend other cultures. Certainly every single city in Scotland put up lights.

try slough to name but one
In *every* single argument about immigration that I've ever observed or taken part in, this happens.

"This" being picking at individual events and issues and extrapolating those to "prove" that the point of view is correct when applied to the whole argument.

I agree that not putting up Christmas lights is ridiculous. So I would refer the honourable gentlemen to the point I made earlier about inconsistent decision-making on the part of authorities.

Of course, I've picked on one thing - DS' and Stewart's exchange above (because it was the most recent) to prove the point of *my* argument.

And my argument is that any discussion about immigration is doomed to be inconclusive and lead to inflammatory exchanges such as some of the ones we've seen on this thread. It's an emotive issue and always will be.

No, I haven't reached any conclusion either, I just wanted to rant about people ranting.

stewart38
3rd-September-2005, 02:52 PM
In *every* single argument about immigration that I've ever observed or taken part in, this happens.

"This" being picking at individual events and issues and extrapolating those to "prove" that the point of view is correct when applied to the whole argument.

I agree that not putting up Christmas lights is ridiculous. So I would refer the honourable gentlemen to the point I made earlier about inconsistent decision-making on the part of authorities.

Of course, I've picked on one thing - DS' and Stewart's exchange above (because it was the most recent) to prove the point of *my* argument.

And my argument is that any discussion about immigration is doomed to be inconclusive and lead to inflammatory exchanges such as some of the ones we've seen on this thread. It's an emotive issue and always will be.

No, I haven't reached any conclusion either, I just wanted to rant about people ranting.


This isnt about immigration its about Facts you cant base whats going on in the world by looking down your own street and say hey all that about flooding is *******s as my street is dry

I see muslims stopped every day at Euston , i dont like it

LMC
3rd-September-2005, 03:22 PM
This isnt about immigration its about Facts you cant base whats going on in the world by looking down your own street and say hey all that about flooding is *******s as my street is dry

What I'm saying is that people frequently only use *one* fact to prove an immigration argument rather than a collection of facts (e.g. all immigrants are evil because one family happens to be taking the p*** out of the benefits system, outrage outrage blah blah blah; all Muslims expect unreasonable changes because one pig-headed girl insists on being able to cover up completely when the existing uniform was perfectly acceptable according to Koranic principles, and the courts are dithering because the media is again shouting outrage, cultural insensitivity or outrage, she's being unreasonable - and changing their minds daily. etc etc etc). And that this picking one fact and saying "there, that proves it" frequently happens in immigration arguments in my experience. I guess what I'm asking for is for us to get away from picking at individual facts and discuss issues. Of course, you need facts as evidence. But more than one or two.


I see muslims stopped every day at Euston , i dont like it
You've fallen into the classic media trap there - How do you know they are Muslim? They could be Christian, Hindu, atheists or any other religion? If you mean *Asians* I don't like seeing them being stopped at Kings Cross either. But again, we're on the shaky ground of "racist versus reasonable". There are white Muslims. But most Muslims are Asian and therefore stand out by their appearance - so are more likely to be stopped. Asians may also be "not Muslim", as noted above. The FACT is that many (although not all) recent terrorist attacks on "the West" have been carried out by male Muslims of Asian origin. Short of stopping and searching everybody, the police have to make best use of resources and since current evidence indicates that there are more Asian male terrorists than white female terrorists, of course Asian males are more likely to get stopped. This does *not* excuse poor or prejudicial treatment or discourtesy. But stopping them in the first place is absolutely reasonable.

Unfortunately, because of political correctness gone mad, the above point of view could get me called racist, because I am suggesting that treating someone differently on the basis of their appearance is reasonable. So let me make it quite clear that I am ONLY agreeing that the stop and search on more male Asians than other sectors of the population is reasonable based on EVIDENCE that most recent terrorism has been carried out by male Asians.

El Salsero Gringo
3rd-September-2005, 04:12 PM
So a NO to face being covered then. Proves the lie of the original post. Can anyone find a source for all the cities who didn't put up Xmas decorations? (or..er..not as the case mat be :)The London Borough of Barnet puts up non-denominational lights in Golders Green Road around the beginning of December, and takes them away mid-January.

Given that 30% of the population of Golders Green is Jewish, and a large proportion of those Orthodox Jewish who could well object to overtly Christian decorations - it seems like a fair compromise.

The lights themselves are long festoons of white bulbs, strung across the road in a zig-zag. I think they look fantastic and are much more tasteful than some Christmas decorations I have seen.

Incidentally, most of those Jewish people are second or third-generation British-born.

Graham
3rd-September-2005, 04:48 PM
Slough is now a city? Gee, you leave the country for a few weeks, and it's all change.... :wink: It's worth remembering that seasonal illuminations cost money, and that the motives of local authorities are frequently misrepresented either deliberately by themselves or maliciously by those politically opposed to the party or parties in power.

I don't want you to feel attacked, Stewart, but by posting your original piece you were pretty much asking for a response like DS's. It's the publishing equivalent of "I was only following orders". If you had posted your own response to it, or even picked specific questions out of it, it wouldn't have looked so much like you agreed with most of it but were too afraid to come out and say so.

On the food thing, if one finds it offensive to be in the same room as food which does not adhere to one's religious standards, then it would be wise to either point this out to a potential host in advance to see if some accommodation can be reached (such as serving the food in a different room), or simply to avoid going to venues where this is likely to be the case.

Lynn
3rd-September-2005, 06:13 PM
Given that 30% of the population of Golders Green is Jewish, and a large proportion of those Orthodox Jewish who could well object to overtly Christian decorations - it seems like a fair compromise. Maybe because putting lights up on high streets has nothing to do with Christian celebrations of Christmas (as neither do trees or Santa) and everything to do with attracting shoppers to an area to spend money?

El Salsero Gringo
3rd-September-2005, 06:25 PM
Maybe because putting lights up on high streets has nothing to do with Christian celebrations of Christmas (as neither do trees or Santa) and everything to do with attracting shoppers to an area to spend money?Absolutely. It makes the high-street look great, livens up the usually dull winter skyline and encourages people out of their houses. Judaism has a celebratory festival in the middle of winter (northern hemsiphere) too, as does Hinduism, and other religions to boot, no doubt. I'm not bothered that the lights are non-denominational though. Are you?

Lucy Locket
3rd-September-2005, 08:13 PM
So you don't support the learning of, say, French, Spanish or Italian in schools? Or else which languages are you saying aren't worth learning?
The gaping hole in this argument (so big that perhaps you can't see it) is that the people I suspect you are talking about are British and this is their country. If you are going to show a complete and total disregard for their cultural heritage, why should you expect any for yours in return?


excuse me but i was the one who went into my children's primary schools & taught them french & italian because i believe if you go to another country you make some effort to speak their language, which is why i also learnt german & as my sister in law is japanese learnt that too because her parents couldn't speak english when they came here

As for myself i have an italian & british passport because funnily enough i was born here to italian parents

finally because my parents' english was not that good they would speak in italian a lot in front of 'english speaking people' & i always made sure people understood what they said

if i go abroad i always make a point of learning a little of their language & their customs & don't expect them to speak english or make allowances

El Salsero Gringo
3rd-September-2005, 08:25 PM
if i go abroad i always make a point of learning a little of their language & their customs & don't expect them to speak english or make allowancesYes, but that I think is the point you're ignoring: the people whose customs we find 'foreign' are not 'abroad': they have British passports, and they're right at home here in Britain! It's your narrow interpretation of what is or isn't British that labels their way of life 'foreign'. Because they live in Britain, with British passports - however they choose to live or worship *is* British!

(Basically, I agree with you to an extent. I think it's a good idea for immigrants to learn English, and were I to emigrate to another country it would be top of my list to learn the vernacular. But I do welcome the input of different cultures to our society - I think it enriches the lives of us all - and in order for that input to happen it must be that *some* people 'live' that different culture right along side everyone else.)

David Bailey
3rd-September-2005, 08:44 PM
It's worth remembering that seasonal illuminations cost money, and that the motives of local authorities are frequently misrepresented either deliberately by themselves or maliciously by those politically opposed to the party or parties in power.
Oh yes, here's an example (http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/archive/display.var.37835.0.christmas_lights_go_up_for_diw ali.php). To quote:

"Christmas decorations are already up across Barnet with two months still to go before December 25.

Town hall bosses say the lights will mark the start of the Hindu Diwali festival of light on November 14. But Tories this week accused the council of using the festival as an excuse for inefficiency."

etc...

As for Golders Green, doesn't it have a big Menorah candle thing lit in the middle of the road somewhere for Hannukah ? Is that as well as, or instead of, the "bland lights"? Handy that Hannukah falls on Dec 25th this year :)

There's definitely been a trend in recent years to have more public celebrations of Divali, Hannukah, etc. And this is a Good Thing. (OK, except when these Divali fireworks go on forever and keep me awake :mad: ).

I can't see the rest of the UK going the N. Ireland route, where community-based celebrations used to be (and still are to an extent) treated as tribal warfare. At least, I hope I can't see it.

El Salsero Gringo
3rd-September-2005, 09:03 PM
As for Golders Green, doesn't it have a big Menorah candle thing lit in the middle of the road somewhere for Hannukah ? Is that as well as, or instead of, the "bland lights"?As well as, but I don't think it's arranged by the council, or paid for from public funds.

Lucy Locket
3rd-September-2005, 09:10 PM
Yes, but that I think is the point you're ignoring: the people whose customs we find 'foreign' are not 'abroad': they have British passports, and they're right at home here in Britain! It's your narrow interpretation of what is or isn't British that labels their way of life 'foreign'. Because they live in Britain, with British passports - however they choose to live or worship *is* British!

(Basically, I agree with you to an extent. I think it's a good idea for immigrants to learn English, and were I to emigrate to another country it would be top of my list to learn the vernacular. But I do welcome the input of different cultures to our society - I think it enriches the lives of us all - and in order for that input to happen it must be that *some* people 'live' that different culture right along side everyone else.)


yes i agree but not have it thrust down our throats to the sacrifice of our own culture

David Bailey
3rd-September-2005, 09:36 PM
yes i agree but not have it thrust down our throats to the sacrifice of our own culture
You know, I think you've nailed down exactly the problem here; the difficulty of ensuring that support / education / help doesn't turn into requirements / forced assimilation / indoctrination.

Most people I think would agree that some degree of assimilation into your host country is reasonable. And that some familiarity with the country's language, customs and traditions would be helpful.

The problem is, how much? Where do you draw the line?

For example, I think the recent "Oath of allegiance" thing is a good idea, and that the whole citizenship test is not unreasonable; it's right that becoming a citizen of a country is treated as a meaningful step.

Of course, I'd rather tear my tongue out than swear allegiance to Our Liz and Chaz, but that's a different matter...

But that's fairly straighforward. What about people like Lucy's parents - to what degree should the state interfere with their private lives? And what about asylum-seekers - again, what degree of intrusion is justifiable?

Lucy Locket
3rd-September-2005, 11:36 PM
But that's fairly straighforward. What about people like Lucy's parents - to what degree should the state interfere with their private lives? And what about asylum-seekers - again, what degree of intrusion is justifiable?[/QUOTE]


My parents have their italian roots but they are living in this country & abide by its rules. what happens behind closed doors (so to speak) is their business. That's where they are italian, they speak italian at home, eat italian food, watch italian tv. They are better english citizens than true british people. They will help anyone, they have italian family here but all their friends are english & they are loved & respected by them.

They would now find it difficult to live in Italy as it would be as alien to them as you & me.

It's was hard for us all when we were young because i was brought up speaking 2 languages. I ate italian meals. Was the only non british child at school with a funny name. Being laughed at & bullied was not funny. i recall staying for school dinners because my friends did instead of going home & ate nothing, i recognized nothing, equally they laughed at what we ate, as spaghetti was unheard of. Went on a school trip & ate nothing. In many ways it's easier these days, times have changed, because we travel further & more, so experience different cultures. We accept more & are accepted. 'Foreign' children, families are part of our everyday lives and that's good. After all we are all human, regardless of colour or creed.

bigdjiver
3rd-September-2005, 11:40 PM
...For example, I think the recent "Oath of allegiance" thing is a good idea, and that the whole citizenship test is not unreasonable; it's right that becoming a citizen of a country is treated as a meaningful step...I would not swear allegiance to the Queen.

David Bailey
4th-September-2005, 12:13 AM
I would not swear allegiance to the Queen.
Indeed - in case you missed it, let me repeat:

"Of course, I'd rather tear my tongue out than swear allegiance to Our Liz and Chaz, but that's a different matter..."

However, the principle of making a commitment to a country to become a citizen is what I'm talking about, rather than the embarassment of swearing to some old tart who'll be first up against the wall come the revolution.

Lynn
4th-September-2005, 01:48 PM
Absolutely. It makes the high-street look great, livens up the usually dull winter skyline and encourages people out of their houses. Judaism has a celebratory festival in the middle of winter (northern hemsiphere) too, as does Hinduism, and other religions to boot, no doubt. I'm not bothered that the lights are non-denominational though. Are you?No. I love twinkly lights. And other 'Christmas' decorations - I just don't really associate any of that with the Biblical understanding of Christmas. Doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the lights and seeing cities making efforts to make the shopping areas attractive.


I can't see the rest of the UK going the N. Ireland route, where community-based celebrations used to be (and still are to an extent) treated as tribal warfare. At least, I hope I can't see it.Like where there are steel barricades and days of stand off about people walking or not walking down a stretch of road? :tears: And flags, coloured kerb stones, wall murals etc all acting as territory markers? :tears:

Baruch
4th-September-2005, 07:25 PM
For example, I think the recent "Oath of allegiance" thing is a good idea, and that the whole citizenship test is not unreasonable; it's right that becoming a citizen of a country is treated as a meaningful step.

Of course, I'd rather tear my tongue out than swear allegiance to Our Liz and Chaz, but that's a different matter...

There's the problem, though. While the UK is still a monarchy, any oath of allegiance would involve swearing allegiance to the monarch. Of course, that may sound reasonable to some, but seeing as there are so many native British people (myself included) who would not swear such allegiance, it seems unreasonable to expect immigrants to do it in order to become citizens (or subjects).

Dreadful Scathe
4th-September-2005, 07:35 PM
So not putting them up would not offend a Christian believer. Calling Christmas 'Xmas' would.

Really? I thought that was just a Greek letter and was in the original bible translations? I googled it to check. And it seems thats the case (http://www.cresourcei.org/cyxmas.html)
(scroll down for the Origin of Xmas)


slough

Slough is hardly a city, as Graham pointed out, nor can it be called "lots of cities" :)



I see muslims stopped every day at Euston , i dont like it

Are they labelling muslims now? I think they should do the same with vegetarians myself ;)

Clive Long
4th-September-2005, 07:43 PM
There's the problem, though. While the UK is still a monarchy, any oath of allegiance would involve swearing allegiance to the monarch. Of course, that may sound reasonable to some, but seeing as there are so many native British people (myself included) who would not swear such allegiance, it seems unreasonable to expect immigrants to do it in order to become citizens (or subjects).
If I was an economic migrant or a refugee I would say any form of words to get the right to stay in the country of my choice even if I did not believe a word of it nor understand the implications what I was saying.

Oaths of allegiance to whomever or whatever, are irrelevant for those for whom it is irrelevant (if you see what I mean)

Clive

Baruch
4th-September-2005, 07:52 PM
Really? I thought that was just a Greek letter and was in the original bible translations? I googled it to check. And it seems thats the case (http://www.cresourcei.org/cyxmas.html)
(scroll down for the Origin of Xmas)
It's true that the word "Christos" (Christ) is often abbreviated to Xtos on Greek icons etc. That's the same sort of thining that's behind "Xmas". It's an abbreviation, nothing more. It doesn't offend my religious sensibilities, especially as I used to use the abbreviation "Xt" for Christ when writing notes in Theology lectures. I do understand why it upsets some people, though, as it looks like the name of Christ is being removed from the celebration. Personally I get more upset by the more obvious ways in which Christ has been removed from the Christmas season, notably the way that our celebration of the birth of Jesus has been hijacked and turned into an orgy of materialism, overeating and debt, something to which Jesus himself would no doubt have objected most strongly.

(Dons flameproof underwear.)

Baruch
4th-September-2005, 07:55 PM
Oaths of allegiance to whomever or whatever, are irrelevant for those for whom it is irrelevant (if you see what I mean)
Yes, that's a fair point. However, I still think that if people do have to swear them in order to become citizens, they shouldn't be made to swear an allegiance that a large number of native British people would be unwilling to swear. Whether it's relevant to the people who have to swear the oath is a different matter.

El Salsero Gringo
4th-September-2005, 09:13 PM
However, I still think that if people do have to swear them in order to become citizens, they shouldn't be made to swear an allegiance that a large number of native British people would be unwilling to swear.Why not? Immigrants who wish to become naturalised have to pass a whole load of tests and selections that native-born British don't.

Baruch
4th-September-2005, 10:18 PM
Why not? Immigrants who wish to become naturalised have to pass a whole load of tests and selections that native-born British don't.
I suppose it just seems pointless to me, and a bit anachronistic. After all, the monarch has little real power or significance, other than as a figurehead. If an oath is required, it should be an oath of allegiance to the state, to the United Kingdom, not to an almost irrelevant relic of an archaic form of government.

stewart38
5th-September-2005, 12:04 AM
Slough is hardly a city, as Graham pointed out, nor can it be called "lots of cities" :)




yep slough is a small hamlet :rofl:
---------------------------------
Slough and its people
Slough is a thriving multicultural town whose close proximity to Heathrow Airport and London, and its excellent transport and communication links, account for its importance and success as a commercial centre. Slough has one of the fastest growing populations in the country. In 2001, the Census showed that the population of Slough comprised 59,320 males and 59,750 females giving a total resident population for the unitary authority of 119,070.

----------------------------

Dreadful Scathe
5th-September-2005, 08:13 AM
yep slough is a small hamlet
<snip>


Is it really? If only someone would post a paragraph on slough with some statistics to prove it was a town!
:rolleyes:

David Bailey
5th-September-2005, 08:17 AM
There's the problem, though. While the UK is still a monarchy, any oath of allegiance would involve swearing allegiance to the monarch. Of course, that may sound reasonable to some, but seeing as there are so many native British people (myself included) who would not swear such allegiance, it seems unreasonable to expect immigrants to do it in order to become citizens (or subjects).
I don't believe so. I was born here, I didn't have any choice in the matter, and I have as much right to the citizenship of my country as Elizabeth flipping Windsor. So I don't want to swear allegiance to her, she's done nothing to deserve it in my book.

However, if I chose to move to another country, chose to live there, and chose to apply to become a citizen there, it's not unreasonable to expect to conform to a slightly different set of requirements than native-born citizens for the citizenship process. Again, the element of choice is the key thing.

I agree swearing allegiance to the Queen is anachronistic; but then, having a hereditary monarch as Head of State is anachronistic. And whilst she is head of state, she represents the UK, like it or not (and I don't).

Any alternative form of words would be difficult to get agreement on, and would be troublesome politically (I can just see the Mail headlines about any changes now...). So we fudge. But then, compromise is also part of the British tradition, so that's OK, :)

Graham
5th-September-2005, 08:46 AM
I've never understood why people get so upset about the head of state. I could understand it if she was a bad head of state, but it's not as if she's presiding over a dictatorship, or bringing the nation into disrepute. When you compare her to elected heads of state such as George Bush or even Jacques Chirac, I don't think she does too badly.

However, I think the key thing about a "citizenship oath" is not so much the exact form of words, but the acceptance of a system of law / government.

David Bailey
5th-September-2005, 08:55 AM
I've never understood why people get so upset about the head of state. I could understand it if she was a bad head of state, but it's not as if she's presiding over a dictatorship, or bringing the nation into disrepute.
It's the principle of being born into the job that gets my goat. We can't chuck her out if we don't like her, as we can with other people in positions of power. OK, it's not much power, but she is still head of state.


When you compare her to elected heads of state such as George Bush or even Jacques Chirac, I don't think she does too badly.
I can't deny these two are pretty unappetising - but at least they don't have the job for life, or act as if they have a right to it.


However, I think the key thing about a "citizenship oath" is not so much the exact form of words, but the acceptance of a system of law / government.
:yeah:
For the UK, I'd suggest acceptance of:
- democratic politics
- rule of law
- tolerance of other people and cultures
- freedom of expression (where not infringing the other three)

stewart38
5th-September-2005, 09:25 AM
Is it really? If only someone would post a paragraph on slough with some statistics to prove it was a town!
:rolleyes:

I think there is about 250,000 living in and around Slough and they havent dropped any bombs on it yet (not since the 1940s anyway)

Funny I use to say I always lived near slough when i lived in it :whistle:

I think the points have been made :yeah:

Dreadful Scathe
5th-September-2005, 09:38 AM
I think the points have been made :yeah:

indeed they have :) ;)

stewart38
4th-October-2005, 12:01 PM
The sad thing is when Prison officers want to wear the St Georges tiepins at Wakefield prison to support charity its banned for fear of offending in mates

I can see why in England now why wearing or showing the national flag is connected with BNP and rascism

I wouldnt know of any other country in the world thats got to a sitaution like we have in England where its SEEN as an offence or rasicist to wear or show the national flag :sad:

Lucy Locket
4th-October-2005, 12:15 PM
The sad thing is when Prison officers want to wear the St Georges tiepins at Wakefield prison to support charity its banned for fear of offending in mates

I can see why in England now why wearing or showing the national flag is connected with BNP and rascism

I wouldnt know of any other country in the world thats got to a sitaution like we have in England where its SEEN as an offence or rasicist to wear or show the national flag :sad:


i know it is pathetic :what:

David Bailey
4th-October-2005, 12:20 PM
The sad thing is when Prison officers want to wear the St Georges tiepins at Wakefield prison to support charity its banned for fear of offending in mates
I presume you're referring to this Daily Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/04/ngeorge04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/04/ixhome.html)?

If so, it sounds like this is a specific case - Wakefield clearly has problems with racism. To quote from the same article:
"The inspectors also found that black and minority ethnic prisoners were twice as likely to be charged with an offence against prison rules."

Also, the fact that it's Principal Prison Officer has been charged with committing a series of rapes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4166144.stm) doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the officers' motivations.

It's easy to say "PC gone mad blah blah", but in Wakefield a bit more overcaution wouldn't be a bad thing.


I wouldnt know of any other country in the world thats got to a sitaution like we have in England where its SEEN as an offence or rasicist to wear or show the national flag :sad:
OK, I've got to say it: that's just bullsh*t.

In the first place, prison guards have these things, they're called uniforms. One of the funny things about uniforms is that they all look the same. And if you wear a uniform, you have these restrictions on what decorations you can add to the things.

In the second place, Wakefield Prison officers clearly have serious problems with racism and other criminality, so a bit of discipline and understanding from these guys wouldn't kill them. It wouldn't totally shock me to find out that the whole cross-wearing thing is a put-up job designed to distract awareness from the serious staff problems there.

Of course, now the story is all about the Valiant Patriotic Prison Officers, hounded by Ms. (nice touch that) Owers. I bet Wakefield prison officers are laughing all the way to the BNP meeting...

El Salsero Gringo
4th-October-2005, 12:34 PM
Some people can wear a St. George's cross and it means nothing.

Some people can wear a St. George's cross and intend it to be a racist badge.

Some people like to wear it as a racist badge and play for sympathy by using this amibguity when they're told not to.

Personally I think prison staff should be more professional than to wear badges of allegiance - to anything - on their uniforms.

TiggsTours
4th-October-2005, 02:03 PM
ok but................if you go to other certain countries you have to abide by their rules, religions, beliefs, language, no bare flesh on show, no alcohol, no certain meats, celebrate their religious festivals, they stick firmly to their culture & don't make allowances for ours, or very little. It's their country & their way of life & that's how it should be. When in Rome etc etc etc. Why have we given up our way of life?? Why can't we have pictures of our Queen up in the schools?? Why do we have to learn, celebrate other religions?? With all due respect we are a christian country & if any one of us wanted to learn another language or know about another religion we are capable of going to evening classes, of joining another church, temple, mosque etc. Yes it's nice to be taught a little as part of our history lesson but to have it in your face (daily as it is in schools these days) at the cost of our own language, religion, lifestyle is bang out of order. If they choose to live in our country they should live as we do, otherwise stay where they are. I'm sure we would not be treated with such respect in their country, we would have to live in their country in their way.

No disrespect meant by the way.
:yeah: I agree! I love other cultures, and I think it is wonderful when cultures truly mix together, but that is just not the case in this country, no matter what people think. Individuals of different cultures may mix, many of my closest friends are from other cultures, but as a country we just don't do it! Instead of banning Christmas lights (the Christian culture is the oldest surviving in this country, not the original) why don't we truly embrace other cultures and celebrate ALL the festivals!? More parties can't be a bad thing? But, in turn of British culture opening up to embrace the "new" cultures that have been brought to this country, there is nothing wrong with hanging on to our own! If I was to move to another country I would most certainly expect to learn the native language, and live by their laws, and culture, why should things be any different here?

stewart38
4th-October-2005, 02:14 PM
I presume you're referring to this Daily Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/04/ngeorge04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/04/ixhome.html)?

If so, it sounds like this is a specific case - Wakefield clearly has problems with racism. To quote from the same article:
"The inspectors also found that black and minority ethnic prisoners were twice as likely to be charged with an offence against prison rules."

Also, the fact that it's Principal Prison Officer has been charged with committing a series of rapes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4166144.stm) doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the officers' motivations.

It's easy to say "PC gone mad blah blah", but in Wakefield a bit more overcaution wouldn't be a bad thing.


OK, I've got to say it: that's just bullsh*t.

In the first place, prison guards have these things, they're called uniforms. One of the funny things about uniforms is that they all look the same. And if you wear a uniform, you have these restrictions on what decorations you can add to the things.

In the second place, Wakefield Prison officers clearly have serious problems with racism and other criminality, so a bit of discipline and understanding from these guys wouldn't kill them. It wouldn't totally shock me to find out that the whole cross-wearing thing is a put-up job designed to distract awareness from the serious staff problems there.

Of course, now the story is all about the Valiant Patriotic Prison Officers, hounded by Ms. (nice touch that) Owers. I bet Wakefield prison officers are laughing all the way to the BNP meeting...

Its the bloody national flag for f*** sake :mad:

Of course flag = BNP or skin heads or village fetes (and thats largely true)

A 'understanding of what' ? Lets just keep re-inforcing stero types

Could you image in the USA if they took the USA flag down in prisons or anywhere else.

Or ANY where else in the world.

TiggsTours
4th-October-2005, 02:49 PM
Its the bloody national flag for f*** sake :mad:

Of course flag = BNP or skin heads or village fetes (and thats largely true)

A 'understanding of what' ? Lets just keep re-inforcing stero types

Could you image in the USA if they took the USA flag down in prisons or anywhere else.

Or ANY where else in the world.
:yeah:

We fly our own flag far less than any other country, which is how the BN bl***y P managed to adopt the Union Jack so readily! People started flying the St Georges cross proudly in a fight back against this pejudice, not in support of it! Why shouldn't we be proud of our country, and our own culture, no matter what culture we or our distant or not so distant relatives may originate from? Why should pride in your own country, and your own culture be seen as racist?

El Salsero Gringo
4th-October-2005, 02:56 PM
:yeah:

We fly our own flag far less than any other country, which is how the BN bl***y P managed to adopt the Union Jack so readily! People started flying the St Georges cross proudly in a fight back against this pejudice, not in support of it! Why shouldn't we be proud of our country, and our own culture, no matter what culture we or our distant or not so distant relatives may originate from? Why should pride in your own country, and your own culture be seen as racist?No reason at all.

But, just perhaps, the prison guards who wanted to wear a St. George's Cross pin were not doing it out of pride for the country and culture.

David Bailey
4th-October-2005, 03:04 PM
Its the bloody national flag for f*** sake
No. It's a tie pin worn by a bunch of thugs who have a code of uniform which they should respect. Simply on the arguments of discipline and respect for authority, they should damn well wear what they're told, stop bitching about this sort of trivia, and sort their prison out.


Could you image in the USA if they took the USA flag down in prisons or anywhere else.
I try not to contemplate the UK turning into a clone of the USA wherever possible, it ensures I can sleep better at night.


Or ANY where else in the world.
Yeah? You ever been to South Armagh perchance? They take flags seriously there, believe me.


We fly our own flag far less than any other country, which is how the BN bl***y P managed to adopt the Union Jack so readily! People started flying the St Georges cross proudly in a fight back against this pejudice, not in support of it! Why shouldn't we be proud of our country, and our own culture, no matter what culture we or our distant or not so distant relatives may originate from? Why should pride in your own country, and your own culture be seen as racist?
To which I can only say 2 things:
- I agree wholeheartedly.
- That's nothing to do with the story we're discussing.

So, I'm proud of my country, but I'm not especially proud of the prison staff in Wakefield Prison.

They wear a uniform - would you think it OK for army officers to paint big Union Jacks on their uniforms? (make great targets of course, I'm sure the boys in Iraq would love it).

Also, they're a bunch of thugs, and I'm not impressed with their charidee badge story, it looks like a put-up job as I said.

Freedom of expression has constraints in any civilised society - and flag-waving / flag-wearing is pretty lowest-common-denominator. As the saying goes "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - and I think these guys fit the bill nicely.

Also, I thought part of the core values of British patriotism were not to make a big deal about it...

stewart38
4th-October-2005, 03:08 PM
Also, I thought part of the core values of British patriotism were not to make a big deal about it...

Unless of course there is a World Cup or European cup when everyone is allowed to be proud to be English Scotish ,Irish

I do see some of your points that you raise did have merit

TiggsTours
4th-October-2005, 03:15 PM
No. It's a tie pin worn by a bunch of thugs who have a code of uniform which they should respect. Simply on the arguments of discipline and respect for authority, they should damn well wear what they're told, stop bitching about this sort of trivia, and sort their prison out.

Please get your facts straight before entering into this argument. The St George's Cross pins that the prison officers were wearing were charity pins, in aid of a cancer research charity. Are you suggesting that the prison officers do not wear poppies in November, as it is not part of their uniform and they should be sorting their prison out?

azande
4th-October-2005, 03:27 PM
Whether they do or not is not an issue. They are wearing a uniform and that should be it.

David Bailey
4th-October-2005, 03:36 PM
Please get your facts straight before entering into this argument. The St George's Cross pins that the prison officers were wearing were charity pins, in aid of a cancer research charity.
Well gosh, I'm just all upset now that those nice non-racist, non-rapist, charidee-supporting, lovely-smelling guards were all misunderstood.

But the full quote is "Chief inspector of prisons Anne Owers said she had been told the pins were bought in support of a cancer charity."
(emphasis mine)

Now, I've Googled, but I can't find any cancer charity which provided St. George's cross pins - that's just the story she was told.

But, I've found a lot of stories about Wakefield Prison - for example, this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4653487.stm) about the prison guard who won the UK's highest-ever compensation award for unfair dismissal, after blowing the whistle about inmate abuse - apparently, she was treated as a "grass" after reporting claims prisoners were being bullied.


Are you suggesting that the prison officers do not wear poppies in November, as it is not part of their uniform and they should be sorting their prison out?
I'm not suggesting anything; I'm saying it.

The prison guards at Wakefield are a bunch of thugs, and I don't trust anything they tell me. I'm going to start with the assumption that they're liars, and work from there.

And from an emotional point of view, I don't want these people using my country's flag - they are racists, and I don't like them.

stewart38
4th-October-2005, 03:41 PM
Whether they do or not is not an issue. They are wearing a uniform and that should be it.


Of course its a bloody issue. so you would band poppies and if not why not ??




I'm not suggesting anything; I'm saying it.

The prison guards at Wakefield are a bunch of thugs, and I don't trust anything they tell me. I'm going to start with the assumption that they're liars, and work from there.

And from an emotional point of view, I don't want these people using my country's flag - they are racists, and I don't like them.


How much time did you spend in the prison ? I ASSUME you spent some time there to reach these conclusions ?

azande
4th-October-2005, 03:43 PM
I would ban poppies or anything else that is not regulamentary (SP?) worn with a uniform. That's why is called a "UNIFORM".

When in civil clothes they can wear what the hell they want.

LMC
4th-October-2005, 03:47 PM
I would ban poppies or anything else that is not regulamentary (SP?) worn with a uniform. That's why is called a "UNIFORM".

When in civil clothes they can wear what the hell they want.
:yeah:

Once again we have stupid authorities getting overly "PC" when azande's reason should have been quite sufficient - and inflammatory media reporting creating the Himalayan mountain chain out of a grain of dust.

TiggsTours
4th-October-2005, 03:48 PM
I would ban poppies or anything else that is not regulamentary (SP?) worn with a uniform. That's why is called a "UNIFORM".

When in civil clothes they can wear what the hell they want.
So, when police officers wear poppies, or even soldiers, or other members of our British forces, wear poppies, that is wrong then is it? I mean, its not part of the uniform. Perhaps the Salvation Army should stop wearing them too?

David Bailey
4th-October-2005, 03:49 PM
How much time did you spend in the prison ? I ASSUME you spent some time there to reach these conclusions ?
Well, I'm just basing my evidence on the following publically-known facts:
- They've just been rapped over the knuckles by an inspection for a number of problems including racism
- The principal prison officer has been charged with 4 rapes
- The one staff member who tried to alert the authorities was bullied, mistreated, then unfairly dismissed.
- There were 11 suicides there last year

Apart from that, I'm sure they're all lovely...

TiggsTours
4th-October-2005, 03:50 PM
Well gosh, I'm just all upset now that those nice non-racist, non-rapist, charidee-supporting, lovely-smelling guards were all misunderstood.

But the full quote is "Chief inspector of prisons Anne Owers said she had been told the pins were bought in support of a cancer charity."
(emphasis mine)

Now, I've Googled, but I can't find any cancer charity which provided St. George's cross pins - that's just the story she was told.

But, I've found a lot of stories about Wakefield Prison - for example, this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4653487.stm) about the prison guard who won the UK's highest-ever compensation award for unfair dismissal, after blowing the whistle about inmate abuse - apparently, she was treated as a "grass" after reporting claims prisoners were being bullied.


I'm not suggesting anything; I'm saying it.

The prison guards at Wakefield are a bunch of thugs, and I don't trust anything they tell me. I'm going to start with the assumption that they're liars, and work from there.

And from an emotional point of view, I don't want these people using my country's flag - they are racists, and I don't like them.
And I take it you know all the guards at Wakefield Prison personally, I mean, you must do, in order to be able to speak about them this way. Personally I prefer not to judge people that I do not know, or make sweeping generalisations about anything or anyone, I do not have first hand knowledge of. Perhaps I'm niaive? I'd rather be niaive, than an old cynic.

LMC
4th-October-2005, 03:52 PM
I just love seeing arguments get sidetracked to supply justification for the original point of view :devil:

Of course, I don't like taking part in them - 'cos I get as het up as everyone else. Been here, done this one :shrug:

*sets up popcorn stand*

El Salsero Gringo
4th-October-2005, 03:53 PM
So, when police officers wear poppies, or even soldiers, or other members of our British forces, wear poppies, that is wrong then is it? I mean, its not part of the uniform. Perhaps the Salvation Army should stop wearing them too?Since you ask, it's probably better for the police not to wear poppies. The Army? Well, it's a military remembrance thing, so fair enough.

The Salvation Army can wear whatever they like since it isn't (my) public money that funds them. They can beat the drum, tell me I'm a sinner and try to persuade me to go to church if they want. I'd be unhappy for the police or the armed forces to do that too.

azande
4th-October-2005, 03:57 PM
When I was in the Army in Italy I wasn't allowed anything that wasn't part of the uniform, so yes.

stewart38
4th-October-2005, 04:00 PM
Well, I'm just basing my evidence on the following publically-known facts:
- They've just been rapped over the knuckles by an inspection for a number of problems including racism
- The principal prison officer has been charged with 4 rapes
- The one staff member who tried to alert the authorities was bullied, mistreated, then unfairly dismissed.
- There were 11 suicides there last year

Apart from that, I'm sure they're all lovely...

Of course im sure all the inmates are lovely to , who would you run to in a crises ??


I would ban poppies or anything else that is not regulamentary (SP?) worn with a uniform. That's why is called a "UNIFORM".

When in civil clothes they can wear what the hell they want.

Pity then that 50% of prison staff dont wear uniforms

Yes ive been in prisons and work with prisoners in the past

azande
4th-October-2005, 04:02 PM
Pity then that 50% of prison staff dont wear uniforms
And your point is........ since we were talking about people in uniform?

stewart38
4th-October-2005, 04:13 PM
And your point is........ since we were talking about people in uniform?


The facts

'a few tie pins were given out bearing the flag of St George on St georges day and in support of a cancer charity'

so those that work in the prison library can wear them but those that work in D block cant ??

Now I assume you agree anyone in unform (nurses , police etc NOT army) should not wear the poppy as it could be offence to others :mad:

Political correctness gone mad

Of course the BNP will love this and 'feed' of it.

yes lets ban the police wearing poppies I can see the BNP rubbing their hands now

azande
4th-October-2005, 04:19 PM
No, you really do not understand, it might be my english.....

I do not believe people in uniform should wear anything (poppies, pins, striped ties, garters on top of trousers....) that is not issued with the uniform.

It has nothing to do with political correctness or the fear of offending anyone.

Please tell me if it is clear. If not I'll get someone else to explain it to you.

David Bailey
4th-October-2005, 04:23 PM
And I take it you know all the guards at Wakefield Prison personally, I mean, you must do, in order to be able to speak about them this way.
Do we have to know every member of an iffy regime, to know that they're iffy, or to make value judgements about them?

For example (oops, I was in danger of invoking Godwin's law with a reducto ad absurdium comparison there, whew...), should I know every member of a terrorist group before I can judge that they're not nice people?

Putting it another way, did the authors of the MacPherson report have to personally know every London copper before they could say that the Met was institutionally racist? Or for that matter, that it was instituionally corrupt in the 60s and 70s? These are pretty much matters of public record.

In 10 minutes of online searching, I've come up with 4 very damning pieces of factual evidence against the prison staff regime in Wakefield. Yes, I'm making a value judgement here, but I'm basing it on publically-available and reputable sources.

What evidence do you have to assume that these are just harmless patriots, apart from a story they told which has "lovely publicity" and "distract their attention" and "One for the Mail readers to get worked up about" written all over it?

It looks and smells like a publicity-generated story to me.


Personally I prefer not to judge people that I do not know
So, getting absurd again, you don't think Ian Huntley (who's a prisoner in Wakefield, BTW) is a bad person?


or make sweeping generalisations about anything or anyone, I do not have first hand knowledge of. Perhaps I'm niaive? I'd rather be niaive, than an old cynic.
Well, I'm old, and cynical, yes. But so what? Am I right? Or am I right? (Gotta throw in a Groundhog day quote somewhere)


Seriously, you have to make judgements about people we don't know personally in life - for example, in elections, surely?

El Salsero Gringo
4th-October-2005, 04:25 PM
The facts

'a few tie pins were given out bearing the flag of St George on St georges day and in support of a cancer charity'Facts that you have from where by the way? I'm not being 'challenging' - I'd like to know.

Now I assume you agree anyone in unform (nurses , police etc NOT army) should not wear the poppy as it could be offence to others :mad: Basically, there's a strong argument for that - yes. If uniformed public servants are to wear badges then someone (you, Stewart?) is going to have to decide on which badges are acceptable and which aren't.

Of course the BNP will love this and 'feed' of it.Stuff what the BNP think. On this or on anything else.

stewart38
4th-October-2005, 04:29 PM
Do we have to know every member of an iffy regime, to know that they're iffy, or to make value judgements about them?

For example (oops, I was in danger of invoking Godwin's law with a reducto ad absurdium comparison there, whew...), should I know every member of a terrorist group before I can judge that they're not nice people?

Putting it another way, did the authors of the MacPherson report have to personally know every London copper before they could say that the Met was institutionally racist? Or for that matter, that it was instituionally corrupt in the 60s and 70s? These are pretty much matters of public record.

In 10 minutes of online searching, I've come up with 4 very damning pieces of factual evidence against the prison staff regime in Wakefield. Yes, I'm making a value judgement here, but I'm basing it on publically-available and reputable sources.

What evidence do you have to assume that these are just harmless patriots, apart from a story they told which has "lovely publicity" and "distract their attention" and "One for the Mail readers to get worked up about" written all over it?

It looks and smells like a publicity-generated story to me.


So, getting absurd again, you don't think Ian Huntley (who's a prisoner in Wakefield, BTW) is a bad person?


Well, I'm old, and cynical, yes. But so what? Am I right? Or am I right? (Gotta throw in a Groundhog day quote somewhere)


Seriously, you have to make judgements about people we don't know personally in life - for example, in elections, surely?

Answer the question would you 'run' to the scum officers or the lovely in mates :yeah:


Anyway 'debates' like this are silly

The BNP is a clear winner once again :clap:

I think we have one camp that would ban everything and another that w ouldnt.

Ill wear my poppy with pride come July !!!!

David Bailey
4th-October-2005, 04:29 PM
Facts that you have from where by the way? I'm not being 'challenging' - I'd like to know..
I'd also love to know what cancer charity this was.

I can't find anything online - can anyone who knows how this superweb thing works help?

David Bailey
4th-October-2005, 04:34 PM
Answer the question would you 'run' to the scum officers or the lovely in mates :yeah:
Errr... give me a bit of context here. Do I trust the prison guards more than the inmates?

Yes, I do.

(Except possibly the one who's being charged with multiple rapes. And the one who planted evidence. And the one who... OK, I mostly trust them more than the inmates.)

But "Mostly a bit more trustworthy than high-security prisoners" is not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it? I'd hope our standards for public servants are a leetle higher than that.


Ill wear my poppy with pride come July !!!!
:rofl:
Sometimes you're a hard man to stay angry with, Stewart...

stewart38
4th-October-2005, 04:41 PM
Facts that you have from where by the way? I'm not being 'challenging' - I'd like to know.Basically, there's a strong argument for that - yes. If uniformed public servants are to wear badges then someone (you, Stewart?) is going to have to decide on which badges are acceptable and which aren't.Stuff what the BNP think. On this or on anything else.


The daily mail you should know that by now :yeah:

Not sure where the jump to badges came ??

why should i 'decide' . If the police for example havd been wearing poppies for 50yrs your suggesting they should now stop

If that wouldnt play into BNP and others i dont know what would.

Anyway im sure this is boring people now

Id love to pick up the speeding debate or middle lane hoggers but i wont

I guess people see things very differently

I have noted the Daily Mail havent found another family with 12 kids (centre page spread with the title 'I dont have to work again or want to thanks to the state' ) are they looking hard enough ?

I must admit all joking aside i do sort of see two points here

El Salsero Gringo
4th-October-2005, 04:41 PM
I think we have one camp that would ban everything and another that w ouldnt.

Ill wear my poppy with pride come July !!!!That's fine. But people in positions of power and authority over others (particularly in environments where traditionally abuse and bullying flourish, like prisons) need to be more sensitive.