The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

[timmothy]

why cant there be stricter laws on immigrants entering this country, they just let anyone in.. i mean if they let me in they will let anyone in

 

[vee70]

Bloody foreigners, coming here and stealing our jobs.

Isn't it rather unlikely given her paternal bloodline?

 

[Sankari]

why cant there be stricter laws on immigrants entering this country, they just let anyone in.. i mean if they let me in they will let anyone in

It depends where you're from. I'm a foreigner, and I had to buy an expensive visa to enter the UK. I also had to show that I had £5,000 in my bank account, because I would not be eligible for any benefits or social housing.

 

[rypt]

Isn't that what multiculturalism is *really* all about? Having lots of different cultures each refusing to integrate with the rest of society?

No, multiculturalism is a mixture of cultures all integrated into one society where everyone is free to do their own things but also conforms to the norm.
The norm is closer to the original society than it is to the new immigrants as the "norm" evolves far slower compared to demographic changes.

 

[Stag]

Like you I can only surmise based upon evidence available to me, such as the wiki article. It is noticeable that the attributed author is not even sure that he said it in the first place Going with the wiki article the alleged author was very much anti communist and fell out with Hitler when the religious seperation became apparent. Not before.

Exactly my point, he was very against communists so much so he was happy to see them disappear. The problem was once the Nazis got rid of the Communists, they moved onto another group they didn't like and so on. You can currently use the example of Islam as a similar case and see where the fear and apathy could lead.

It equally does not mean that they don't or won't have in the future.

So just because a Muslim becomes a politician there is always the chance deep down he is a Jihadist or has leanings in that direction? Seriously how paranoid do you want to sound, don't label all Muslims as potential fanatics.

However my post doesn't mention specific religions with regard to the possibility of a religion attempting to gain political control.

You may not have mentioned specifically Islam in that paragraph I was replying to, but you have used Islam/Sharia/Muslim MP's throughout your posts. I also use it as an example because it is the religion that Nick Griffin described as a "vicious wicked faith". It is public enemy number one thanks to the war on terror and the CIA's involvement over decades.

Is Islam however not a "complete system" of which politics is very much a part? Is it not a logical extension of Islamic faith to extend itself into UK culture, education law and politics?

Islam is a religion, yes it has filtered into countries governmental infrastructure in countries that adopt Sharia as basis for their way of life; but that does not make Islam incompatible with other law systems. In this country we have Common Law, which is nothing to do with religion. Why is it a logical extension to extend itself onto law? They are quite welcome to their culture, they haven't extended themselves onto me: and how could they?

A certain religion has asked for it to be a crime for ANYONE to criticise it at an international level.

Why not just say you mean Islam?

However my post asks what we should or should not do if a religion tries to gain control of the UK.

When will a religion try to gain control, we have a highly developed system of government that wouldn't be compatible with such a move.

As for "incitement to religious hatred" I think that there is a thin line between being able to say "Islam is a religion that promotes anti semitisim, mysogyny and intolerance" which *could* be someones legitimate and reasoned opinion which they can back up with examples and a potential Muslims reaction to the statement claiming it to be "religious hatred".

You can't say that because it isn't true. Some extreme interpretations of Islam you could peg that label onto: but not Islam as a whole. You are judging an entire religion on some fanatics, and specific instances in certain countries.

When people hear things that they don't like it doesn't take a huge leap for them to claim some sort of discrimination. I wonder how easy it will be to express a sentiment that is opposed to religion without being accused of being filled with hatred. Perhaps we only have to look at the way in which people opposed to immigration get accused of fascism and racism to see the answer. However I would much rather not use specific religions as examples as it could be any religion and using specific examples is likely to bog it down into a very different debate.

When you present evidence that certain religions have a mandate to try and take over maybe people won't think you are just paranoid and/or prejudiced.

My post is about possible futures rather than the here and now. However if 30%, of those who voted, voted for a hardline islamic political party would they not be in power and be able to push such laws through?

I know the BNP are paranoid that Islam is going to become the main religion in the UK, so in all intents and purposes let's entertain that in 60 years time 50% of the UK is Islamic in some form. Do you really think educated and cultured Muslims would vote for a hardline Muslim party that would push through laws akin with Iran? For a start half of that 50% would be women, you think they would vote themselves into 2nd class citizens?

Do you think sharia courts will in any way change the number of honour killings?

I think as Islam becomes a more ingrained religion in Britain the practices of extremism such as honour killings will go down. Sharia courts in the open will only help that, as it puts the heads of the communities in the public domain.

Yet we are seeing radicalisation of young muslims here to the extent that some blow themselves up on the tube? Not something that we saw before.

Terrorism is abhorrent, but we had something similar with the IRA not too long ago. Some radicalised Muslims is no different from radicalised Christians, they're both deluded nutters.

Change that is occurring within Iran is happening internally, it is a change that a large number of people want.

You don't think the women in Iran aren't inspired by women with equal rights around the world?

It is not a forced change created by mass immigration, for that reason it might be successful and painless.

Has someone be forcing you to attend a Mosque? Do people tell you that your wife should wear a bhurka? Has your child been sacramentally circumcised? No one is forcing culture on you, it is merely another culture living alongside your own.

Aren't ALL nationalities mongrel nationalities that have become something in their own rights. You considered Normans to have done just that and to have become a distinct group of people.

You are correct, there are very few nationalities that are pure blood. When nationalism was born you had nation states arising with mono-cultural values. We should be beyond that now. It is the dogmatic forcing of culture on people that is the problem. Something which the immigrants are not doing.

Why is it so important for British people to consider themselves mongrels but not for other peoples to do the same?

It's important for certain people with nationalist leaning to understand that so they realise that we are all human with different genotypes.

I think that the amount of mixing within the UK was probably lower than across Europe because of the natural boundaries to travel that being an island presents.

So you think as a nation we are more pure blood Northern European (I don't agree personally as there has always has been immigration and movement of tradesmen)?

Do you think we are stronger because we have mixed less? Do you understand what a gene pool is?

So why are the Japanese doing so well in so many ways?

In what way? They are in a recession just like us. If you talk more recently it is partly because of the limits of military spending that were forced on them, so they used their resources to develop technology and industry.

The British as a distinct people ruled a large percentage of the world, they did not need to become more ethnically diverse to do that.

That's because they already were ethnically diverse, we also used native troops to supplement our own if you didn't realise.

Perhaps sickle cell anemia is something the British people need in their genes as a GOOD thing?

Do you know why sickle cell anaemia developed? It is actually a mutation to resist malaria.

Regardless of that it is not that common and to suggest immigrants somehow through miscegenation will cause a dramatic increase of sickle cell anaemia in British people is ludicrous.

You can also look at it from another angle, something like cystic fibrosis which isn't generally found in non white could be bred out.

Gene mixing is good. We are a nation of mongrels and we are stronger because of it. Let the mixing continue. A bigger gene pool is a stronger nation.

 

[vee70]

No, multiculturalism is a mixture of cultures all integrated into one society where everyone is free to do their own things but also conforms to the norm.
The norm is closer to the original society than it is to the new immigrants as the "norm" evolves far slower compared to demographic changes.

So the UK is not multicultural then as it contains vast colonies of people who have little or nothing in common with the UK and the level of integration is very low.

 

[rypt]

So the UK is not multicultural then as it contains vast colonies of people who have little or nothing on common with the UK and the level of integration is very low.

Many parts of the UK are multicultural and have no problems ... the problems arise around the areas that do not have that, generally the same areas that tend to have communities of people from the same place.

This is NOT multiculturalism at work - in a multicultural society there would be an even distribution of people not a clumping together along demographic lines.


Take for example all the British expats living abroad ... if they all lived together in France say between Nice and St Tropez .. would this make France a multicultural society, or would it make the France simply French with a bunch of Brits all living together and not mixing with the French?

 

[vee70]

Exactly my point, he was very against communists so much so he was happy to see them disappear. The problem was once the Nazis got rid of the Communists, they moved onto another group they didn't like and so on. You can currently use the example of Islam as a similar case and see where the fear and apathy could lead.

I think we've strayed well away from the point. A Nazi sympathiser got the hump because and only because Hitler advocated State over Religion. It could equally be used to suggest that all forms of Britishness could disappear because no-one stood up for it, indeed it could be used to promote the BNP rather than demote them.

So just because a Muslim becomes a politician there is always the chance deep down he is a Jihadist or has leanings in that direction? Seriously how paranoid do you want to sound, don't label all Muslims as potential fanatics.

Those are ALL very much YOUR words and certainly not mine. Where have I suggested anything like that? Islam is a complete system of life and government. It does not have to be Jihadist at all. Indeed where a political process allows it to assume control it has no need for Jihad.
Islam is an ideology and one of the leading tenants of Islam is to spread Islam. Why would an Islamic MP not try to spread islam?
However it is worth pointing out, again, that it is YOU who keep referring to Islam, not me. I only mention it when answering specific points of yours.
Furthermore suggesting I am paranoid and inventing things that you claim that I have said is exceptionally poor quality debate or discussion.
I strongly suggest you back up your assertions with some quotes of mine or withdraw your ridiculous assumptions.

You may not have mentioned specifically Islam in that paragraph I was replying to, but you have used Islam/Sharia/Muslim MP's throughout your posts.

No I have not. I have been very careful to avoid bringing any specific religion into the debate. Each and every mention of Islam is in direct reply to your mentions of Islam. The first mention of Islam in our discourse was yours. Please try to debate with facts not lies.

I also use it as an example because it is the religion that Nick Griffin described as a "vicious wicked faith". It is public enemy number one thanks to the war on terror and the CIA's involvement over decades.

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the points I have raised.

Islam is a religion, yes it has filtered into countries governmental infrastructure in countries that adopt Sharia as basis for their way of life; but that does not make Islam incompatible with other law systems. In this country we have Common Law, which is nothing to do with religion. Why is it a logical extension to extend itself onto law? They are quite welcome to their culture, they haven't extended themselves onto me: and how could they?

Any religion (I see that once again you are mentioning islam) can via the political process gain power. You do understand that concept right? Once in power any political party can make changes to the law, or attempt to. If a hardline religious party is democratically elected then what right does anyone have to oppose them?

Why not just say you mean Islam?

Are you incapable of debating without bringing Islam into it? Is it a required aspect for your brand of emotive debate?

When will a religion try to gain control, we have a highly developed system of government that wouldn't be compatible with such a move.

We have a democratic system that makes it entirely possible. Why wouldn't it be "compatible"?

You can't say that because it isn't true. Some extreme interpretations of Islam you could peg that label onto: but not Islam as a whole. You are judging an entire religion on some fanatics, and specific instances in certain countries.

Again you miss the point. The point there is about the difference between someone expressing their opinion (which doesn't always have to be correct) and someone interpreting that opinion as incitement to religious hatred......
It is awfully difficult to discuss issues with someone who struggles to comprehend simple concepts.

When you present evidence that certain religions have a mandate to try and take over maybe people won't think you are just paranoid and/or prejudiced.

Because Christianity and Islam have NEVER tried to take over the world right?

I know the BNP are paranoid that Islam is going to become the main religion in the UK, so in all intents and purposes let's entertain that in 60 years time 50% of the UK is Islamic in some form. Do you really think educated and cultured Muslims would vote for a hardline Muslim party that would push through laws akin with Iran? For a start half of that 50% would be women, you think they would vote themselves into 2nd class citizens?

Firstly it would not take 50% of the population, when was the last time a ruling party had 50% of the vote? It could take a far, far smaller % of the vote for any party to win the general election.
Secondly what do you mean by educated and cultured muslims? Are you suggesting that non UK muslims lack education and culture? Educated and cultured people In Germany did not directly vote for the mass murder of 6 million jews but they did get it. Politics are rarely so black and white as getting what you actually voted for.

I think as Islam becomes a more ingrained religion in Britain the practices of extremism such as honour killings will go down. Sharia courts in the open will only help that, as it puts the heads of the communities in the public domain.

Assuming that the majority of honour killings are muslim rather than say hindhu? Assuming that having sharia courts in some way stops the practice in islamic countries? Which it doesn't?

Terrorism is abhorrent, but we had something similar with the IRA not too long ago. Some radicalised Muslims is no different from radicalised Christians, they're both deluded nutters.

You claimed that our liberal culture would make radical elements more liberal. However I've given you an example of the exact opposite. It has nothing to do with the IRA whatsoever. Your point was that our liberal nature would make people coming here more liberal.

You don't think the women in Iran aren't inspired by women with equal rights around the world?

Of course I do. What they aren't inspired by is forced mass immigration to thier country and being told that they must adopt different values. In Iran the people are getting to choose what they want to adopt, not being told what to adopt.

Has someone be forcing you to attend a Mosque? Do people tell you that your wife should wear a bhurka? Has your child been sacramentally circumcised? No one is forcing culture on you, it is merely another culture living alongside your own.

It is not in the nature of any culture to just live alongside another culture. It is not human nature.

You are correct, there are very few nationalities that are pure blood. When nationalism was born you had nation states arising with mono-cultural values. We should be beyond that now. It is the dogmatic forcing of culture on people that is the problem. Something which the immigrants are not doing.

Very true. The dogmatic forcing of "you are now a multicultural society, you will learn to like other cultures, you will learn to like it or we will scream racist at you"...... Many people see this uncontrolled immigration and the sheer size of it as having something forced upon them. And for them it is a problem....

It's important for certain people with nationalist leaning to understand that so they realise that we are all human with different genotypes.

Why? Is it not also important to realise that different cultures don't mix well and that established populations don't always like to have immigration forced upon them with no say in the matter?

So you think as a nation we are more pure blood Northern European (I don't agree personally as there has always has been immigration and movement of tradesmen)?

More pure blood? Again your words not mine. I think the UK has probably had a lesser mixing of people than central Europe simply due to the way that it is easier to walk on land than water.

Do you think we are stronger because we have mixed less? Do you understand what a gene pool is?

Did the lesser extent of our mixing stop us being the dominant country in the world for a significant period of time? Am I more prone or less prone to certain ailments as a result of my ancestry? You'd really have to expand upn your statement and explain what you mean by "stronger".

In what way? They are in a recession just like us. If you talk more recently it is partly because of the limits of military spending that were forced on them, so they used their resources to develop technology and industry.

They appear to have a far lower crime rate and are competing very well economically. Yet they have very low levels of immigration. Can you really think of nothing positive in Japan? They have held on strongly to their population and cultural norms and yet do not appear to be worse off for it. If multiculturalism is so good then why doesn't Japan appear negatively affected by the lack of it?

That's because they already were ethnically diverse, we also used native troops to supplement our own if you didn't realise.

The british were not ethnically diverse. They simply ruled other people. Do you think any of those Indian troops in Victorian times got to vote or have any say in the UK or even the future of their own country?

Do you know why sickle cell anaemia developed? It is actually a mutation to resist malaria.

And that still doesn't mean that mixing genes always results in a stronger variant does it......

Regardless of that it is not that common and to suggest immigrants somehow through miscegenation will cause a dramatic increase of sickle cell anaemia in British people is ludicrous.

Perhaps you can show me where I suggested that it would "cause a dramatic increase"? If you need to resort ot inventing things to try and make a point it can only be because your own point is weak. You claimed mixing genes is GOOD. Period. I gave you an example of when it would not be good. That was all. Yet you invent a ream of BS to try and ratify your nonsense.

You can also look at it from another angle, something like cystic fibrosis which isn't generally found in non white could be bred out.

Or more likely it could spread to non whites. Genetic mutations do not usually seem to be bred out, rather the reverse.

Gene mixing is good. We are a nation of mongrels and we are stronger because of it. Let the mixing continue. A bigger gene pool is a stronger nation.

Stronger how? Stronger in what way? Which European nations are not "mongrels". Infact barring Australia and the deep Amazon which nations are not "mongrels"? Which of these cultures desperately wants to become assimilated and to disappear? I'm struggling to think of any immigrant population that is keen to forget its roots and genetically breed itself out. Perhaps you can point one out?

 

[vee70]

Many parts of the UK are multicultural and have no problems ... the problems arise around the areas that do not have that, generally the same areas that tend to have communities of people from the same place.

This is NOT multiculturalism at work - in a multicultural society there would be an even distribution of people not a clumping together along demographic lines.


Take for example all the British expats living abroad ... if they all lived together in France say between Nice and St Tropez .. would this make France a multicultural society, or would it make the France simply French with a bunch of Brits all living together and not mixing with the French?

Would you say that the areas with problems tend to be the areas which large numbers of immigrants and the areas that don't have these problems are areas where the immigrnats are spread out and have little choice but to integrate?

Would you then suggest that we force people not to live in communities of "their own kind" or simply reduce immigration so that there are not any large communities of immigrnat cultures?

Either way is it not evidence that multiculturalism does not work and also that people tend to want to preserve their own cultures and identities and don't really care about the host nations identity?

 

[SteveOBHave]

Many parts of the UK are multicultural and have no problems ... the problems arise around the areas that do not have that, generally the same areas that tend to have communities of people from the same place.

This is NOT multiculturalism at work - in a multicultural society there would be an even distribution of people not a clumping together along demographic lines.


Take for example all the British expats living abroad ... if they all lived together in France say between Nice and St Tropez .. would this make France a multicultural society, or would it make the France simply French with a bunch of Brits all living together and not mixing with the French?

The problem lies in the definition - Multiculturalism is a different story to a nation being 'multicultural'. Having travelled a great deal and lived/visited a great many cities and countries I've found London to be the greatest example of a multicultural population. I though that New Zealand was multicultural, and indeed it is to a certain extent, but London is a whole other ball game. The UK is very much multicultural as there is a vast representation of many different cultures however in many cases they struggle to reach the lofty ideals of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is more of an ideal and partially a policy in place in many western societies. The ideal being that you can co-exist as multiple cultures whilst still being able to retain your own cultural identity. Therein lies the problem with Multiculturalism. Whilst many of us are bought up to accept that we all have a given right to express ourselves in a cultural manner and to have our own beliefs, the very nature of many cultures clash with the ideal. Many cultures (including our own western cultures) have an extremist representation that precludes the ideal of Multiculturalism through it's hardline belief structure. This is becoming significantly more evident in clashes between the extreme left representation and the likes of the BNP and extreme religeous representation of the likes of Islamists (as examples not singularily).

Where does this leave us? I believe that this should leave us still striving for the ideal of a properly multicultural and multiculturalist society where we recognise that the extreme view is not the broad representitive view. Not all believers in Islam are extremists nor are all white british born people racist bigots. Having a blanket view that all people not of this land should be removed is ignorant and ultimately socially destructive.

(all this is my opinion - sometimes it needs saying)

 

[SteveOBHave]

Would you say that the areas with problems tend to be the areas which large numbers of immigrants and the areas that don't have these problems are areas where the immigrnats are spread out and have little choice but to integrate?

Would you then suggest that we force people not to live in communities of "their own kind" or simply reduce immigration so that there are not any large communities of immigrnat cultures?

Either way is it not evidence that multiculturalism does not work and also that people tend to want to preserve their own cultures and identities and don't really care about the host nations identity?

The problem is that you can't look at the point as a singular sweeping statement nor as a broad sweeping solution. There are a vast number of people who quite readily integrate into western society and still retain their cultural identities. These areas of communities that exist with there 'own kind', as you so gracefully put it, are in many cases essential to the eventual integration into western society and at times in retaining their cultural identity. Suggesting that they shouldn't mix with their 'own kind' is a poorly formed approach to the issues and only further serves to alienate them from the society that they are seeking to become part of.

 

[vee70]

The problem is that you can't look at the point as a singular sweeping statement nor as a broad sweeping solution. There are a vast number of people who quite readily integrate into western society and still retain their cultural identities. These areas of communities that exist with there 'own kind', as you so gracefully put it, are in many cases essential to the eventual integration into western society and at times in retaining their cultural identity. Suggesting that they shouldn't mix with their 'own kind' is a poorly formed approach to the issues and only further serves to alienate them from the society that they are seeking to become part of.

How does a large community that seeks to have only "its own kind" living amongst it "seek to become part of" the wider community? It simply doesn't.
Why should the "native" population wait for the "eventual integration" of these communities? How does still further immigration make things better?

Simply put "birds of a feather flock together". Given that the vast majority of people seem to chose to live amongst their own people, of their own culture, and to have little or no social interaction with people from outside of their culture how can multiculturalism be a good thing or a necessary thing?
How are the native population benefitting from having their country divided up into areas of different cultures?

 

[Rich_L]

Maybe native people should grow a pair, stop being so insecure and worrying about other cultures and focus on their own cultures instead and maybe they might realise that it is up to them to maintain 'their' culture, rather than be lazy and whining to the government to do all the work for them.

On the train back home last night, two people were speaking French, oh noes my culture is under attack...christ on a bike if that's all it takes to 'threaten' British culture it isn't worth saving in the first place.

 

[vee70]

Maybe native people should grow a pair, stop being so insecure and worrying about other cultures and focus on their own cultures instead and maybe they might realise that it is up to them to maintain 'their' culture, rather than be lazy and whining to the government to do all the work for them.

On the train back home last night, two people were speaking French, oh noes my culture is under attack...christ on a bike if that's all it takes to 'threaten' British culture it isn't worth saving in the first place.

Focus on your own (British) culture? What and be accused of xenophobia and racism for not being inclusive enough?
How is objecting to mass immigration being lazy and asking the Government to do all the work for them?
How is questioning the validity and benefits of multiculturalism being lazy and whining for the Government to do all the work for them?
Why shouldn't native people wish not to have their country changed via immigration? It seems that those immigrating don't wish to change so why is it wrong for the British people to not want change?

 

[SteveOBHave]

How does a large community that seeks to have only "its own kind" living amongst it "seek to become part of" the wider community? It simply doesn't.
Why should the "native" population wait for the "eventual integration" of these communities? How does still further immigration make things better?

Simply put "birds of a feather flock together". Given that the vast majority of people seem to chose to live amongst their own people, of their own culture, and to have little or no social interaction with people from outside of their culture how can multiculturalism be a good thing or a necessary thing?
How are the native population benefitting from having their country divided up into areas of different cultures?

My guess is that you have never been to a country that doesn't in one form or another speak English?

These people arrive in a country that is (strangely) foreign to them and their instinct is to seek a place of comfort, somewhere where they can retain a sense of community. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't? Should they perhaps abandon everything that they are accustomed to because without doing so they effectively make it impossible to integrate with their new chosen home? I believe that you have the wrong end of the stick.

For a moment lets reverse the roles. You come from a society where if you put a foot wrong you could be lawfully beaten, stoned or set fire to and you are looking for somewhere to call a home where it is not only safe for you but also for your children. So you move to another country and they don't speak your language and they don't harbor the same beliefs/religion as you however you've been told that they (within their own belief system) understand that everyone has a given right to retain not only their cultural identity but also their freedom of choice. You move to this country, alone with your children, but struggle to find your way around. There are people who have been here longer than you so you move close to them for support. You and your children now have a place where you can live safely and also have a future that doesn't involve constant oppression and fear for your life. Where do you see this as being wrong? Where do you feel that that situation precludes gradual eventual integration into the society?

How do you know that they have no social interaction with any other communities? Where do you get your 'facts' that they exist entirely as a separate community that neither wants nor makes an effort to integrate? My feeling is that it's something of a sweeping statement formed from an emotive state of mind rather than from a well thought out factual point.

Your making a broad sweeping statement and suggesting that every person that belongs to a particular cultural group adheres to a singular rule and that I believe is at best misguided and at worst racist and bigoted.

 

[SteveOBHave]

It seems that those immigrating don't wish to change so why is it wrong for the British people to not want change?

How do you know this? Have you talked to all the people immigrating to the UK? How did you fund and execute this broad and all encompassing census?

 

[Rich_L]

Focus on your own (British) culture? What and be accused of xenophobia and racism for not being inclusive enough?
How is objecting to mass immigration being lazy and asking the Government to do all the work for them?
How is questioning the validity and benefits of multiculturalism being lazy and whining for the Government to do all the work for them?
Why shouldn't native people wish not to have their country changed via immigration? It seems that those immigrating don't wish to change so why is it wrong for the British people to not want change?

Because most of the time it's got nothing to do with genuine concerns but just pathetic whining arising from nosiness and insecurity.

Does the fact your neighbours look different, or talk different really impact your life? Honestly? Are people so insecure about their culture that they genuinely get uncomfortable just because local shops stock different foods? It's absolutely pathetic. 'They speak funny', 'they make buildings look funny'...oh you poor diddums, newsflash, people are different.

No matter how different, 'immigrants' still eat, sleep, breathe, bleed, crap just the same as any other human. No matter where your neighbours are from they still want the same thing as anyone else, a comfortable life. If people pulled their head out of their ass for 2 seconds and focused on the similarities rather than the difference, maybe they wouldn't feel so 'invaded'.

I suggest those people take a long hard look at themselves and question where the problem really lies, I suspect for many, the answer can be found in the mirror.

 

[SteveOBHave]

For the benefit of D.P. could you confirm that you are an immigrant and that changes in immigration policy could affect you even though you already live here?

Sorry missed this bit. D.P.? Heh I'd scan in and post my Visa but that could be asking for trouble. Aside from that, what difference does it effecting me have to do with anything - what I'm talking about is what is right and well considered in our society and why we should suddenly be making addendums to immigration policy based on racial origin.

Again for the benefit of D.P. could you suggest any party that someone who has concerns over existing and future immigration could vote for in the UK party system who are promising to deal with the whole p[icture and not just future problems?

You know fundamentally it's not singularily the immigration policy that concerns me but all the other baggage that you bring with it when you allow such narrow minded and misguided people into power. Your not just voting on a couple of policies, you're voting for the whole package. The problem is that the 'whole picture' is not such an attractive one.

 

[vee70]

My guess is that you have never been to a country that doesn't in one form or another speak English?

That is the trouble with guessing, you're often completely wrong.

These people arrive in a country that is (strangely) foreign to them and their instinct is to seek a place of comfort, somewhere where they can retain a sense of community. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't?

Have I said that they should not? Perhaps you can show me where....

Should they perhaps abandon everything that they are accustomed to because without doing so they effectively make it impossible to integrate with their new chosen home? I believe that you have the wrong end of the stick.

How so? I have stated that it is human nature to go with what you know....... birds of a feather flock together.....

For a moment lets reverse the roles. You come from a society where if you put a foot wrong you could be lawfully beaten, stoned or set fire to and you are looking for somewhere to call a home where it is not only safe for you but also for your children. So you move to another country and they don't speak your language and they don't harbor the same beliefs/religion as you however you've been told that they (within their own belief system) understand that everyone has a given right to retain not only their cultural identity but also their freedom of choice. You move to this country, alone with your children, but struggle to find your way around. There are people who have been here longer than you so you move close to them for support. You and your children now have a place where you can live safely and also have a future that doesn't involve constant oppression and fear for your life. Where do you see this as being wrong?

Where have I said it is anything other than human nature?

Where do you feel that that situation precludes gradual eventual integration into the society?

When there are huge communities that are so poorly integrated that are growing rather than shrinking you mean? Can you show me the integration? You can clearly see the huge unintegrated communities.

How do you know that they have no social interaction with any other communities? Where do you get your 'facts' that they exist entirely as a separate community that neither wants nor makes an effort to integrate?

Surely communities that want to integrate don't all move in together but move out into the wider community. You spent the first half of your post suggesting that it is only natural to want to be with your own kind and now you're trying to tell me that they are desperate to integrate.... which of course is demonstrated by the highly divided towns and cities.....

My feeling is that it's something of a sweeping statement formed from an emotive state of mind rather than from a well thought out factual point.

What is? The first half of your post is an emotive explanation as to why people coming here choose to stick with their own. Can you make your mind up as to whether people prefer to be with what they are familiar with or whether they are all desperate to mix?

Your making a broad sweeping statement and suggesting that every person that belongs to a particular cultural group adheres to a singular rule and that I believe is at best misguided and at worst racist and bigoted.

Did I? Where was that? I made a statement about "the vast majority" of people. Note that is people as in Human Beings. Not any specifric group. Not every person of a specific group. Please point out where I made a statement about every person of a specific group.
It is interesting that you jump up with the racist card yet you've done so based upon your own peculiar interpretation of plain English.

 

[vee70]

How do you know this? Have you talked to all the people immigrating to the UK? How did you fund and execute this broad and all encompassing census?

Where have I stated that I "know" something? I stated that it "seems as though"........
Is English not your first language?