Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Talveer)
    Muslims directly asked Britain for a state for muslims, Britain agreed and partitioned it for muslims. They wouldn't have partitioned it otherwise.
    Source?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    okay, well left liberal politics (by which I mean the politics of Labour) and which are only liberal in a sense, are to all intents and purposes anti English.

    Your second point isnt entirely clear though... who the minority British you are referring to are?
    So when the Tories come into power all this will be sorted out. Only a few months to wait.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Talveer)
    Right wing people think that any policy that doesnt make being white an advantage is "anti-british"
    What has this got to do with skin complexion?

    Surely immigrants to the UK come from a wide variety of countries - I think we have 170 nationalities represented in London.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Talveer)
    Right wing people think that any policy that doesnt make being white an advantage is "anti-british"
    Hmm I half agree and half don't agree.

    I think people who actually know their stuff and their views swing more to the right are aware of equality.

    However, for the people that inhabit this forum I believe there to be truth in what you say. But before you judge them, you must realise that younger people have a tendency to jump on the first cause they are exposed to. Many on this forum have no idea what terms such as liberal, fascist, right wing and so on actually mean. Rather they attach themselves to a particular "side" and anyone who argues against it is automatically labeled the extreme ideology of the side that they are perceived to be. Many on here have only just come into contact with relevant "knowledge" and so are ignorant as to politics, legal system etc etc.

    It is these young people, who have "taken up the cause" of right wing that believe any policy that is not pro white british people, is anti british. They see the world as black and white.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    Yeah, I live in London. But, in some areas such as southall or tower hamlets have a high population of Bengali’s and Indians.
    The high population argument doesn't really work.

    Canary Wharf has a high population of Australians relative to other areas. The individuals which I know still socialize with a non-Australian such as myself. Likewise, the proportion of people of 'Bangladeshi' (East Bengali?) ethnicity in Tower Hamlets is 33%. Just because there may be a higher population of one ethnic group in one borough relative to another dosen't negate the fact that many people in London travel to other parts of the city for work/study/entertainment meaning they are very very likely to socialize with people of a different nationality/country of birth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They're already into the UK and everyone knows immigrants breed like rabbits in order to claim more benefits and a bigger house off of a council. Might need pesticide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by effofex)
    What has this got to do with skin complexion?

    Surely immigrants to the UK come from a wide variety of countries - I think we have 170 nationalities represented in London.
    But people are not realising this. There are 76% are white and therefore less harder to distinguish and people are focusing on the remaining 24%.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by az1992)
    please explain the logic in a political party, whose existance relies on the british public, to be anti-british? although they may appear in the media otherwise, politicians are not stupid and many have been fortunate enough to go through an education we can only dream of. Therefore I am sure they are fully aware that any deliberate "anti-british" policies would mean night night for them.

    Also what do you mean by anti-british?

    My second point was commenting on your view that all first or second generation immigrants have a "chip" on their shoulder about british people. I fail to see any actual real world manifestation of this and that is despite living in a community with a high ethnic population.
    Okay with regard to your first point about the Labour party being anti English and the underlying phenomenon...

    There's a couple of very nice articles if you are interested.

    The second point... well that's a whole seperate debate...

    but maybe this article is a pertinent example...

    with this being the key passage

    The dominant subculture in schools in London, Birmingham and elsewhere is overwhelmingly influenced by African-American youth culture, and with it African-American politics. It is a world of violence, misogyny and machismo mixed with paranoid, anti-Western grievance politics and contempt for European society.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gap)
    They're already into the UK and everyone knows immigrants breed like rabbits in order to claim more benefits and a bigger house off of a council. Might need pesticide.
    Whoops.

    Surely different immigrants have different birth rates, often dependent on earning power. Those with higher incomes may have less children. There are some very rich immigrants, and some poorer ones.

    Immigrants are not entitled recourse to public funds (i.e. unemployment/housing benefit) until they have become naturalized British citizens. In order to do this, they must apply for citizenship after a minimum of 5 years law-abiding residence in the UK, pass a 'Life in the UK Test' with a pass mark of over 75% and stump up over £800 for the certificate of nauturalization.

    Who told you that immigrants may apply for council housing? They are not permitted to. This is only asylum seekers. The number of economic migrants hugely outnumbers the number of asylum seekers.

    I think you have been very, very misinformed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    But people are not realising this. There are 76% are white and therefore less harder to distinguish and people are focusing on the remaining 24%.
    Well surely when you speak to people and ask them about their place of birth then it becomes obvious who is and who isn't an immigrant.

    Surely it would be more appropriate to focus on the 'white' immigrants since they outnumber the ones who are 'not-so-white'?

    As I said earlier, if this is an economic issue, what on earth would skin complexion have to do with it and why would it even be brought into the debate?
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by cucumber sandwich)
    I agree to 100% with this guy, finally someone who is thinking straight. It is not an advantage for Britain to accept so many immigrants that we do. It is not economically viable in the long run.
    Tebbit offers no argument for his claim that:

    " We live here and it is we, the people, who have the absolute right to decide who may, and who may not, come here and upon what conditions they come."

    Such a claim has a rather unpleasantly socialist ring to it. Heck, I had to check if I was reading an article on the Telegraph website or the Socialist Workers Party's website. One would have expected that Tebbit would have respected the rights of private property owners, rather than roughshod over their wishes. Certainly, he at least needs to provide some justification for his unsupported claim, as it is far from obvious or undeniable. If someone wishes to sell property to another person in an open and transparent way, why should they be prevented from doing so? Is Tebbit really have so little respect for property rights that he wants to prevent people from trading their property as they see fit? Alas, it seems so.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jaydoh)
    Search my thread on Magaret Hodge, she talks sense.
    ... she said all that because she wants headlines and fence-sitting voters, not because she actually believes in it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    I'm not talking about white or black people, I am black yet favour reduced migrationary levels on the grounds of overcrowding, community cohesion, housing, environmental impacts and so forth. The invasion, exploration argument is a straw man, when are people going to move on from the past and enter the present, the main invasion period happened more than one hundred years ago for goodness sake....do we demand reperations from the Italians, or apologies from the Danes for taking Celtic women as slaves next?
    All true, but people move here for a reason - they are suffering in the present in their country. When Britain becomes so overcrowded, segregated and bad enough for people to stop moving here then the teams will have been made even.

    People born on the inside of an imaginary line drawn on a map shouldn't be entitled to anything better than those on the outside.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    So technically we have the automatic right to settle in Rome, Germany and so on? If all this is a numbers game :rolleyes:
    Sure, nothing is stopping me from moving to Rome apart from lack of desire to move there.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    Tebbit offers no argument for his claim that:

    " We live here and it is we, the people, who have the absolute right to decide who may, and who may not, come here and upon what conditions they come."

    Such a claim has a rather unpleasantly socialist ring to it. Heck, I had to check if I was reading an article on the Telegraph website or the Socialist Workers Party's website. One would have expected that Tebbit would have respected the rights of private property owners, rather than roughshod over their wishes. Certainly, he at least needs to provide some justification for his unsupported claim, as it is far from obvious or undeniable. If someone wishes to sell property to another person in an open and transparent way, why should they be prevented from doing so? Is Tebbit really have so little respect for property rights that he wants to prevent people from trading their property as they see fit? Alas, it seems so.
    Come Kolya you seem to have turned the debate from an immigration one to one centred who you can and cannot sell your house to.

    I think the meaning of Tebbits claim is clear... we, meaning the English people, where never once asked if the policy of multiculturalism or mass immigration was what we wanted, the policy and the extent of it were pursued through subterfuge, it was imposed upon this country by a government totally at odds with and disconnected from the people it supposedly represents, and I think it is fair to say it was against the English peoples wishes. To the extent that today thousands of thousands of people turning up uninvited year after year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Come Kolya you seem to have turned the debate from an immigration one to one centred who you can and cannot sell your house to.

    I think the meaning of Tebbits claim is clear... we, meaning the English people, where never once asked if the policy of multiculturalism or mass immigration was what we wanted, the policy and the extent of it were pursued through subterfuge, it was imposed upon this country by a government totally at odds with and disconnected from the people it supposedly represents, and I think it is fair to say it was against the English peoples wishes. To the extent that today thousands of thousands of people turning up uninvited year after year.
    If you don't like immigration, buy property on the border and don't allow people you don't want onto it. If I have property on the border and want to let people pass freely or whatever, what right have you to stop me?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There are too many immigrant in the UK with alien traditions, cultures and religious beliefs. Already there are significant ghettos of BEM communities in various parts of the UK challenging English society. These immigrants have taken advantage of English hospitality and tolerance and now want to assert their own way of life. Where there is diverse cultures and traditions there is conflict and strife. I believe, Enoch Powell's 'river of blood' speech is a powerful foretelling of things to come if immigration is not stopped and if illegal immigrants are not deported. After all most immigrants don't have the skills we need and just burden our already indebted economy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Okay with regard to your first point about the Labour party being anti English and the underlying phenomenon...

    There's a couple of very nice articles if you are interested.

    The second point... well that's a whole seperate debate...

    but maybe this article is a pertinent example...

    with this being the key passage
    So rather then base your views on actual fact and your own experiences, you'd rather base them on the opinions of three internet blogger. Whats more you present these articles as if they are the truth. Shakespeare wrote literature (although granted plays and internet blogs are different) yet am I supposed to conform to his anti semitism?

    You still havent answered my question about how illogical it would be for a party to be anti its country. In response to the article by Mr Scruton, my school sang pro-christian and british songs in assembly despite being slap bang in the middle of a largely ethnic suburb of North London. The way he describes his history lessons makes me laugh. The whole point of history is to stimulate the abillity to look at something from both perspectives. Being able to look some of the British Empire's past as oppressive to the people in which it spread aside is not being anti-british, it is called being smart and an independent thinker.

    Please refrain from posting blogs of irrelevant peoples opinion in answer to questions about your views.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamjar)
    There are too many immigrant in the UK with alien traditions, cultures and religious beliefs. Already there are significant ghettos of BEM communities in various parts of the UK challenging English society. These immigrants have taken advantage of English hospitality and tolerance and now want to assert their own way of life. Where there is diverse cultures and traditions there is conflict and strife. I believe, Enoch Powell's 'river of blood' speech is a powerful foretelling of things to come if immigration is not stopped and if illegal immigrants are not deported. After all most immigrants don't have the skills we need and just burden our already indebted economy.
    a) What are these alien cultures? We manage to integrate emos, greebos, goths and chavs just fine - OK there's a tiny bit of violence but I don't really see the issue.

    b) What's a BEM? I take it you mean immigrant? I remember you quoting me on another thread which I'll reply to soon.

    c) What is the 'English way of life'? Surely we live in a pluralistic nation where much variation in religious affiliation, dress sense, accents, relationships, family setups, etiquette, cuisine, music etc. are all tolerated within the law? - Surely nobody is being prohibited from practising 'their way of life', provided that none of their customs violate existing laws?

    d) When you talk of 'diverse' cultures are you referring to multiculturalism or multiethnicism? There are 'diverse' cultures in Kerala, New York and Frankfurt and those regions seem to be coping quite well.

    e) Enoch Powell was wrong. There have been relatively few incidents of civil strife over the previous 20 years in London - though maybe a few in other parts of the UK. London is THE most multiethnic city in the UK.

    He was more likely referring to shagging his wife during her period when he talked about 'rivers of blood'.

    f) All non-EU immigrants (i.e those from Commonwealth nations) granted a work visa have a 'skill' that is deemed in short supply in the UK by the UK government. Some immigrants from those nations may be granted 'family visas' if they are close relatives but are prohibited from working officially since they have no National Insurance number. Nevertheless, they are entirely dependent financially on their relative since they have no recourse to public funds.

    g) Any citizen of an EU member state may travel to, and reside within, the UK. Likewise, any UK citizen may emigrate to, and seek employment in any EU member state.

    h) Don't you think it would be excessively difficult to 'deport' illegal immigrants, especially if there are over a million? I wonder what effect this would have on infrastructure and certain public services. Whilst there is no direct economic benefit in income tax paid by them, neither do they 'take' anything out of the system - since if they come into contact with the apparatus of the state (i.e. healthcare PCTs, schools/universities, police, the law, councils etc.) their illegal stay may be discovered and they are immediately liable to deportation to their port of embarkation. Hence why the Mayor of London supported an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    i) How are immigrants a burden on the indebted economy when they may neither claim unemployment nor housing benefit, regardless of whether they are EU or non-EU migrants.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by az1992)
    So rather then base your views on actual fact and your own experiences, you'd rather base them on the opinions of three internet blogger. Whats more you present these articles as if they are the truth. Shakespeare wrote literature (although granted plays and internet blogs are different) yet am I supposed to conform to his anti semitism?

    You still havent answered my question about how illogical it would be for a party to be anti its country. In response to the article by Mr Scruton, my school sang pro-christian and british songs in assembly despite being slap bang in the middle of a largely ethnic suburb of North London. The way he describes his history lessons makes me laugh. The whole point of history is to stimulate the abillity to look at something from both perspectives. Being able to look some of the British Empire's past as oppressive to the people in which it spread aside is not being anti-british, it is called being smart and an independent thinker.

    Please refrain from posting blogs of irrelevant peoples opinion in answer to questions about your views.
    please refrain from silly pretentious posts like this
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.