Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: White Flight

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    This is a state of affairs that has been so , since the sixties. Yes London, like many other cities had immigrant communities in various boroughs, The vast majority of these came from our former colonies,already holding British passports.
    Not true. With the exception of those of British ancestry in the white dominions (Canada, Aus, NZ, Eire before 1948), colonial subjects were never permitted British citizenship and British passports in their home countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    Their presence here was supported by each and every government whatever its persuasion.
    Which goes to prove the democratic deficit on the issue. Nobody asked the British people what they thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    Of course people moved aside for the new comers, many to another borough, many went to new towns, and loads retired to the coast. But where it was most noticable that a definite change was occurring was in the smart central boroughs, it was here that our upper class wealthy society was selling out just as quick as they could get the cheques in their banks, to just about anyone that had the money, and that did,nt often mean they were British.
    An odd view of immigration and housing. The vast majority of new arrivals here have settled in areas which they could afford, i.e. those that were already impoverished, typically of the Victorian terraced house type. I'm pretty sure that whoever lived in these terraces pre-1960's, it wasn't your "upper class wealthy society" Tory bogey-men Mack!

    Blackburn in Lancashire is typical. As Asians poured in, the poor white population which initially lived alongside them in the terraced housing gradually displaced to sprawling council estates around the edge of town. Blackburn is now as segregated as Belfast or Jerusalem, with poor Asian areas and poor white areas, each with their own schools and services, living parallel lives but never mixing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    In the post war era immigration to this country has been propelled by two distinct political situations , first our colonial obligations, second our obligations to our EU membership.
    Presumably our colonial "obligations" ended when each of our former colonies became independent. Pakistan was independent from Britain in 1947, so why are we still running an open-door policy to Pakistani immigrations in 2013? We are letting in immigrants whose grandparents had not yet been born when their home country was still under British rule. How long is this colonial guilt-trip going to last? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Britain is a business, not a charity. People should have to earn the right to come and live here, not be freely allowed in because we have some misplaced guilt regarding our colonial past.

    As for the EU, it has been 40 years since people were given a chance to vote on something called the Common Market, which was sold by the Tory traitor Edward Heath to us as little more than a trade deal. Since then (or rather since the second referendum under the Wilson government) nobody has been permitted a say on our EU membership, which has expanded beyond recognition - both in its geographical extent and its interference in our society. All three main parties have supported EU membership, and fringe parties like UKIP who have advocated withdrawal have been derided by the likes of you as "lunatic" or "xenophobic" or "racist". So a complete democratic deficit then. I personally feel I have no obligations to the EU whatsoever, as the EU is something that has been forced upon me without my consent, or the consent of the majority population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    In both cases the Tories were just as involved as anyone else. For Northumbrian to say otherwise is just more total nonsense from him.
    I don't deny that the Tories have not been as strong on immigration as they should have been, even though most sensible grass-roots Tories would like stronger controls on immigration. However, immigration has been driven by the left-wing establishment and that has a lot of momentum behind it which is hard to stop. Look at how long Theresa May has been trying (but failing) to get rid of Abu Qatada out of the country. We cannot even deport a notorious terrorist!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    We often hear from Tory business men how us Brits don,t want their work, or if we do we want to much money, so they will take an immigrant every time. In the central part of England I now live in ,the field workers of the big Tory farmers are almost to a man and woman immigrant workers. So if we do have a problem ,numbers wise it shouldn,t require a brain of Britain,as to which political influence is most keen on keeping those numbers as high as they can. More total hypocracy.
    There are plenty of businessmen and farmers who like to exploit immigrants to lower their wage costs. Why are these necessarily Tories though Mack? Alan Sugar is a millionaire businessman and he supports Labour (as well as being a general t**ser). You seem to live in a world where around every corner is a Tory bogeyman!
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 03-16-2013 at 03:33 AM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,000

    Default

    No date was mentioned Northumbrian, other than, "from the sixties." As an example, many of those coming from say Jamiaca, to the UK in 1948 were given UK citizenship there and then, it was a part of the deal, the same applied to those from India.
    You say you believe in democracy, well we have an election every four -five years. Obviously, according to you the people didn,t shout loud enough.
    In all other respects, everything you say is based on wishful thinking. It,s pleasing to see you acknowledge some Tory complicity in this problem, but thats all.
    If you had known London, As I did in that period you would be well aware that the rich and noble, were the first to sell up, so if you consider the situation in its entirety, your assumption, here and elsewhere, that this whole subject is the result of some socialist plot is wrong.
    Bring out Sir Alan ,why don,t you, after all he is a business man, and this is another chance to call him names , because he is not a Tory. As for ,"Tory Bogymen." Round every corner. No Lieing, Hypocritical T**sers, in my face.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    116

    Default

    I did think twice about making what is essentially my first post on here in a race related thread. Sadly Ive found on forums that having a view on race/immigration tends to lead to pigeonholing, but you all seem to be reasonably comfortable with each others views.

    It is noticeable in most of our urban areas now (not just in London, Birmingham and the bigger cities), that large areas have become almost ghetto-ised. And that has led imho to an almost complete extirpation of what we once understood as British "culture". I say understood, because it seems to be fashionable to slate what passed/passes as "white peoples" culture. I remember being at a party a few years back, and during a discussion about this or a similar subject, a woman (who was a social worker for the local authority) scoffed when one bloke used the words "british culture" when refering to the past, and derided him by saying "white people don't have any culture to speak of". I can't remember how the rest of the conversation went off, but I lost interest after that. I think she also said something like "you can't call fish and chips and morris dancers culture". I must admit, I laughed, not just because it was funny, but because of the self loathing she almost seemed to enjoy shovelling onto others.

    I'm not sure many white people understand what their "culture" is any more. I also remember reading the Parekh Report (The commission for the future of Multi-ethnic Britain) which contained many of the foundation posts for Multiculturalism in the uk - and thinking that it was basically a long winded attack on Britain and the British establishment.

  4. #14
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    I do share that sentiment as I don't really know what my culture is. I know I have country that I live in and pay taxes to a State, but I don't feel I have any right to claim any part of this country as my own. This country gives me the security to live, work and play with relative freedom from persecution and liberty of thought. I think that is perhaps our greatest cultural asset, that we have moved to a point where Government has become the protector of the people, rather than the people being the protector of the Government/Monarch. But this ghettoisation is no different for the white culture when they migrate. The British Raj lived in their own communities, and so too ex-pats when they move to Spain live in Anglicised communities, and demand their British comforts.

    Is there any doubt any settled immigrant would uphold our liberties if called upon to do so?
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red View Post
    I did think twice about making what is essentially my first post on here in a race related thread. Sadly Ive found on forums that having a view on race/immigration tends to lead to pigeonholing, but you all seem to be reasonably comfortable with each others views.
    Welcome to the forum Red! Unfortunately, that pigeonholing does exist here on the forum as it does elsewhere in society. The term "racism" has long been usurped by the left as a weapon to demonise those who don't share their views on immigration, and therefore shut down any debate on the issue. To his credit Eatmy, whilst I disagree with him on most things, does not censure people just for expressing their views.

    Quote Originally Posted by Red View Post
    It is noticeable in most of our urban areas now (not just in London, Birmingham and the bigger cities), that large areas have become almost ghetto-ised. And that has led imho to an almost complete extirpation of what we once understood as British "culture". I say understood, because it seems to be fashionable to slate what passed/passes as "white peoples" culture.
    What you are talking about here is the left-wing doctrine of "multiculturalism", which even the likes of Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, regards as having failed. Multiculturalism denigrates the indigenous culture to be equal, or indeed having less worth, than the cultures of those who come to settle in this country. Under multiculturalism, the onus is upon the indigenous population to adapt our culture to accommodate the newcomers - accepting things which are against our cultural norms, such as the subservient nature of women in Islam for example. At the same time, "multiculturalism" makes no demands on the newcomers to change or adapt their culture, not even to start speaking our language. This is what has led to ghetto-isation and segregation. Part of the package of "multiculturalism" is the persecution of those members of the indigenous population who oppose it.

    The alternative to multiculturalism is the model of immigration which is followed by most of the rest of the world. That is "integrationism". Under an integrationist system, we explain politely to the people who are fortunate enough to be invited to live here that this is Britain (we should really start saying England, as Scotland and Wales are going their own way ... and good riddance to them) and that it is they who must adapt to British/English culture and not the other way around. That includes, for example, speaking our language, treating women with equality and respect, not maiming their children's genitals, and not forcing schools to serve their children meat from animals which have been slaughtered in a barbaric religious ritual. If they don't wish to accept this, then perhaps this is not the country for them. There are plenty of countries in the world who would welcome them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Red View Post
    I remember being at a party a few years back, and during a discussion about this or a similar subject, a woman (who was a social worker for the local authority) scoffed when one bloke used the words "british culture" when refering to the past, and derided him by saying "white people don't have any culture to speak of". I can't remember how the rest of the conversation went off, but I lost interest after that. I think she also said something like "you can't call fish and chips and morris dancers culture". I must admit, I laughed, not just because it was funny, but because of the self loathing she almost seemed to enjoy shovelling onto others.
    If you wish to destroy and annihilate a people, the first thing that you do is deny their culture, or denigrate their culture as worthless. I'm sure Hitler said similar things about the Jews that this woman said about the English. The odd thing, of course, was that unlike Hitler this woman (I assume she was English) was talking about her own people. Do these socialists realise that they condemning their descendents to a life of subservience, on the margins of society? Would she herself welcome England becoming an Islamic state under Sharia law, where her gender was regarded as sub-human? Perhaps they are so full of self-loathing that they just don't care. In other countries, socialists can nonetheless be patriotic towards their own state. Why can't our socialists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Red View Post
    I'm not sure many white people understand what their "culture" is any more. I also remember reading the Parekh Report (The commission for the future of Multi-ethnic Britain) which contained many of the foundation posts for Multiculturalism in the uk - and thinking that it was basically a long winded attack on Britain and the British establishment.
    Part of the left-wing attack on British/English society has been the eradication of almost anything patriotic from our education system, so its little wonder that many English have become dislocated from their culture/identity. They are taught that their culture/identity is something to be ashamed of. My stepson is studying GCSE history and hasn't actually covered any British history in the syllabus - its all about America in the 20th century! Even prior to GCSE, the only thing he was taught about WWII was the Jewish holocaust, and the only thing about the British Empire was slavery! A survey of teenagers recently asked them who Winston Churchill was ... the majority said he was a dog puppet from an insurance advert. I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    I do share that sentiment as I don't really know what my culture is.
    Might I suggest reading about your countries history as a starting point!

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    Is there any doubt any settled immigrant would uphold our liberties if called upon to do so?
    I have a lot of doubt. I think if this country was ever to suffer real hardship or, heaven forbid, the risk of invasion as in WWII, you wouldn't see most of the immigrant population for dust. There is no community cohesion in this country anymore - the multiculturalists have seen to that.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    No date was mentioned Northumbrian, other than, "from the sixties." As an example, many of those coming from say Jamiaca, to the UK in 1948 were given UK citizenship there and then, it was a part of the deal, the same applied to those from India.
    That is not the same thing as them already having British citizenship before they left, which is what you suggested. I certainly don't regard it as a "colonial obligation" that we gave these people citizenship once they arrived. Nonetheless, this first wave of immigrants was very welcome as we needed them to fill a job shortage after WWII. Still less do I regard it as a "colonial obligation" that in 2013 we are still allowing virtually free entrance and citizenship to anyone from former colonies like Pakistan who want to come here. The Empire ended 70 years ago - isn't it time we move on and stop the guilt-trip?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    You say you believe in democracy, well we have an election every four -five years. Obviously, according to you the people didn,t shout loud enough.
    Its funny how you left-wingers so often deride our democracy, but yet you support it when it gives you the result you want. All three main parties, as you point out, have supported both immigration and EU membership, so what choice have the people had? Our FPTP electoral system has advantages in that it produces a decisive result most elections, but a disadvantage that it makes it hard for small parties like UKIP to have a breakthrough. Nonetheless, that breakthrough could happen for UKIP and if the Tories do not change their position on issues like immigration and the EU, then UKIP may well usurp their position as the centre-right party of choice for the majority of English people. Then you lefties will have an awful lot of egg on your face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    If you had known London, As I did in that period you would be well aware that the rich and noble, were the first to sell up, so if you consider the situation in its entirety, your assumption, here and elsewhere, that this whole subject is the result of some socialist plot is wrong.
    You are talking, presumably, about wealthy Arab sheikhs buying millionaire's flats in Kensington and Chelsea. I'm talking about the vast majority of immigrants who (through no fault of their own, I might add) were forced to live in impoverished areas like Tower Hamlets or Brixton. Are you saying that most properties in Tower Hamlets before the 1960's were owned by rich English Tories? If you are, then you are talking boll**ks and you know it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    Bring out Sir Alan ,why don,t you, after all he is a business man, and this is another chance to call him names , because he is not a Tory. As for ,"Tory Bogymen." Round every corner. No Lieing, Hypocritical T**sers, in my face.
    Alan Sugar is not just a t**ser because he supports Labour, but also because he is a bullying, arrogant, conceited and utterly charmless individual in my opinion. However, the fact that he supports Labour shows what a hypocrite he is. He became wealthy thanks to the reforms and enterprise-supporting policies of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's. Yet he supports a party who wants to quash private enterprise and prevent future entrepreneurs from having success. How selfish to have climbed to the top of the ladder, and then to whip the ladder away to prevent anyone else following you.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 03-17-2013 at 03:20 AM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    I do share that sentiment as I don't really know what my culture is. I know I have country that I live in and pay taxes to a State, but I don't feel I have any right to claim any part of this country as my own. This country gives me the security to live, work and play with relative freedom from persecution and liberty of thought. I think that is perhaps our greatest cultural asset, that we have moved to a point where Government has become the protector of the people, rather than the people being the protector of the Government/Monarch. But this ghettoisation is no different for the white culture when they migrate. The British Raj lived in their own communities, and so too ex-pats when they move to Spain live in Anglicised communities, and demand their British comforts.

    Is there any doubt any settled immigrant would uphold our liberties if called upon to do so?
    I agree that "ghetto-isation" for want of a better word occurs across the board, and is often part of a desire to be among ones own or around familiar things/surroundings. In a way that causes one to question what the point in moving away from those things is in the first place, but most of our inward migration is economic, wheras a lot of outward migration from developed economies is by people choosing a different lifestyle/climate in their retirement. I guess we would all do it in similar circumstances. Nevertheless I don't think that should lead to a complete absence/vilification of the parent culture. In the end it comes down to history and whether or not you think that our culture/heritage is worth anything. Theres little doubt, in my mind anyway, that the advent of "Multiculturalism" in this country has been accompanied by a denigration of the culture/values of what Britain represented by a section of the liberal left. A kind of post-imperialist guilt if you like?

    As for whether many of those settled immigrants would uphold our liberties, I'm sceptical. I think many West Indian and Asian immigrant families of 2nd and 3rd generation, those whose families arrived long before the advent of multicultralism, see their home and nation as Britain, are as British as anyone else, and would defend it as vigourously as anyone else. Because they came here when integration was a pre-requisite. Many of the later arrivals have no such affinity to this country and are here for a variety of reasons, and I don't think we should be brow beaten by the supporters of multiculturalism that all of those reasons are good for this country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    What you are talking about here is the left-wing doctrine of "multiculturalism", which even the likes of Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, regards as having failed. Multiculturalism denigrates the indigenous culture to be equal, or indeed having less worth, than the cultures of those who come to settle in this country. Under multiculturalism, the onus is upon the indigenous population to adapt our culture to accommodate the newcomers - accepting things which are against our cultural norms, such as the subservient nature of women in Islam for example. At the same time, "multiculturalism" makes no demands on the newcomers to change or adapt their culture, not even to start speaking our language. This is what has led to ghetto-isation and segregation. Part of the package of "multiculturalism" is the persecution of those members of the indigenous population who oppose it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    If you wish to destroy and annihilate a people, the first thing that you do is deny their culture, or denigrate their culture as worthless. I'm sure Hitler said similar things about the Jews that this woman said about the English. The odd thing, of course, was that unlike Hitler this woman (I assume she was English) was talking about her own people. Do these socialists realise that they condemning their descendents to a life of subservience, on the margins of society? Would she herself welcome England becoming an Islamic state under Sharia law, where her gender was regarded as sub-human? Perhaps they are so full of self-loathing that they just don't care. In other countries, socialists can nonetheless be patriotic towards their own state. Why can't our socialists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Part of the left-wing attack on British/English society has been the eradication of almost anything patriotic from our education system, so its little wonder that many English have become dislocated from their culture/identity. They are taught that their culture/identity is something to be ashamed of. My stepson is studying GCSE history and hasn't actually covered any British history in the syllabus - its all about America in the 20th century! Even prior to GCSE, the only thing he was taught about WWII was the Jewish holocaust, and the only thing about the British Empire was slavery! A survey of teenagers recently asked them who Winston Churchill was ... the majority said he was a dog puppet from an insurance advert. I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic.
    I agree that multiculturalism has failed, because at its root multiculturalism is a concept which is at odds with Nationhood itself. I think the word 'persecution' of the indiginous population is a tad strong, but certainly the report I mentioned (Parekh) used the words "post nation" and "a community of communities" extensively. The idea being that no culture should take precedence over another, and that each culture should "co-exist" within a loose framework of a nation. To me anyway, the idea is unpleasant (and not a little offensive), that some people believed they could simply substitute 2000 years of history (good and bad) with a "loose framework". I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be very inclined to fight for the liberties of a loose framework. And the idea that a loose framework of distinct and seperate "communties" could somehow come together and unite in the event that an emergency did occur, is highly unlikely. Multiculturalism, in its truest sense, is not something that would promote any loyalty or obligation towards Britain.

    However, going back to Eatmywords's comments on ghetto-isation, its not like British culture was not denigrating itself before Multiculturalism came along anyway. Leaving immigration aside, there have been huge changes in the demographic over the last 50 years. The population is getting older, various policies of all governments since the 70s have consistantly made it possible for the rich to get richer, and population movement has been huge even without migration. There is still a north-south divide as large if not larger than it ever was, wheras in places like the small Wiltshire village where I grew up, the original families that lived there for generations have been driven out by the wealthy from the south east buying up 2nd homes in the country and equally destroying the very way of life they supposedly moved there for in the first place.

    My point is that although "white flight" might possibly be a side effect of mass immigration, its not really fair to say that other motivations are not also at work. Greed, "bettering ones self" (which is basically another form of elitism) and an unfair balance of opportunity being among them. These are as corrosive on our beloved "white culture" as any liberal left social policy. I think its also fair to say that multiculturalism as the primary driver of mass migration was rapidly overtaken by big business and and industry who quickly appreciated the downward pressure such freedoms of movement would have on wage costs. I don't think the last government did itself any favours with its immigration policies, but I don't think this one will have much more success with its policies either.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,000

    Default

    Northumbrian, let me make one thing abundantly clear, before you continue to bluster on any more with how you perceive this very real and serious issue. I do believe our culture has been changed and damaged in some ways with the influx of a multitude of other cultures. "Yes I do." I am not convinced by the argument put by some ,that the immigration we have seen since WW11 has made Britain a better place. So there you have it.
    I have never derided our democracy, and UKIP have nothing to offer this country, than just one devisive policy, so vote for them if you will and suffer at your leasure.
    Who on earth do you think owned the working class areas of London, and else where, up until the sixties? It sure as hell wasn,t the tenents. It sure as hell was the fat cat landlords. Who didn,t vote Labour. So carry on talking boll**ks as normal Northumbrian.
    Your last passage merely shows once again how little you actually understand about how the world really works. And how narrow and vindictive your views really are.
    But back to the issue, what I object to is you constantly trying to portrait this issue as having been all a great plot hatched by the left, and most of all the way you denigrate the backgrounds and countries from which many of these people come from when you think it serves your purpose. It serves no purpose other than to insult. which is why you do it.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    Northumbrian, let me make one thing abundantly clear, before you continue to bluster on any more with how you perceive this very real and serious issue. I do believe our culture has been changed and damaged in some ways with the influx of a multitude of other cultures. "Yes I do." I am not convinced by the argument put by some ,that the immigration we have seen since WW11 has made Britain a better place. So there you have it.
    But yet you have consistently disagreed with me whenever I have made exactly the same point, and have even tried to falsely label me as a racist. The reason is, of course, because I am Tory and you are blinkered by your hatred of Tories and one-dimensional view of people who don't share your socialist views. For your information, I have never been a banker, the head of an oil company, a slum landlord, or any of the other negative stereotypes you associate with the Tories. Nor did I attend Eton college or was born with a silver spoon in my mouth.

    For the record it is not immigration which is bad, but the way it has been executed and the expectations we have given to the people who have come here. Targetted immigration is good for us - it brings talent into our country and enriches our nation, financially, intellectually and culturally. However, an open door policy is very bad, particularly when the people who come here are told that they don't have to do anything to adapt to our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    I have never derided our democracy, and UKIP have nothing to offer this country, than just one devisive policy, so vote for them if you will and suffer at your leasure.
    Not surprisingly having started from scratch, UKIP are a fairly amateur organisation, but they are learning quickly. No longer are they a one-issue pressure group whose only policy is withdrawal from the EU, so it is you who should disregard them at your peril. Why are you so frightened of the British people having an actual democratic choice between three parties who have pretty much the same policies on Europe and immigration, and one party which is different? What are you afraid of? That the cosy little elitist consensus which you support, but which has never extended to the general population, may be broken perhaps?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    Who on earth do you think owned the working class areas of London, and else where, up until the sixties? It sure as hell wasn,t the tenents. It sure as hell was the fat cat landlords. Who didn,t vote Labour. So carry on talking boll**ks as normal Northumbrian.
    Presumably a mixture of the council, private landlords and owner occupiers. Even working-class people could afford a cheap terraced house in a run-down area. Are you trying to suggest that evil Tory (?!?) landlords evicted their white working-class tenants, to sell to immigrants at a profit in the 60's? This is nonsense of course, as the immigrants were just as poor as the white working-class, if not poorer. You are very confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    Your last passage merely shows once again how little you actually understand about how the world really works. And how narrow and vindictive your views really are.
    I'm not allowed to criticise Alan Sugar now? Vindictiveness is a left-wing speciality, and you have never been short of it Mack. I don't know what you do for a living (social worker perhaps?) but I bet you only mix with people who share your views on society, and you have the nerve to call me narrow-minded. Go to a pub in a North Yorkshire village and start blurting your left-wing spite. You might be surprised to find that the majority of ordinary English people don't agree with you on very much at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    But back to the issue, what I object to is you constantly trying to portrait this issue as having been all a great plot hatched by the left,
    Because in a lot of respects it is a great plot hatched by the left. Opening the door to immigrants certainly works in your favour, just as trapping people on benefits and expanding the public sector does. It gives you a ready-made and increasing electorate. The de-Torification of England is your party's plan, and always has been. It is always interesting to note how almost no immigrants have settled in Scotland and Wales ... no need to bolster the socialist vote there, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    and most of all the way you denigrate the backgrounds and countries from which many of these people come from when you think it serves your purpose. It serves no purpose other than to insult. which is why you do it.
    I have spoken out against certain aspects of certain cultures, particularly Islamic culture, which I find objectionable. This includes female/male circumcision, forced marriages, denigration of women, ritual slaughter of animals, persecution of homosexuals, etc. Are you saying that holding the cultural values which allow these things to happen should be considered as being equal to our own values? Because I for one do not, and I will remain vocal on these issues. Call it bluster if you like, but I intend to keep on blustering.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 03-17-2013 at 03:27 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •