Enoch Powell Documentary. My opinion has been changed.

well you may be from australia but personally, if you dont have a degree, an NVQ (or equivelant vocational qualification) or a trade (this includes proven history in domestic services, cleaning cooking ect, these are unnaccredited trades) as well as making english mandatory then anyone who doesnt meet all this can BUGGER OFF back to whence they came.

anyone claiming asylum for fear of their lives should be asked why the hell they went through germany, france and a number of other bloody places just to get their arses here. If their reasonings sound and they are genuinely running for their lives, then that shouldnt be a problem.
 
Last edited:
well you may be from australia but personally, if you dont have a degree, an NVQ (or equivelant vocational qualification) or a trade (this includes proven history in domestic services, cleaning cooking ect, these are unnaccredited trades) as well as making english mandatory then anyone who doesnt meet all this can BUGGER OFF back to whence they came.

My father was English, and I'm a British citizen - so I have every right to live here for as long as I like, regardless of my qualifications.

But if it helps... I took a Bachelor of Arts degree in Australia, I have vocational qualifications, and I am returning to Australia in January 2009. Happy now? :rolleyes:

Anyway, the UK's immigration situation should improve over the next few years, thanks to the "points-based" system that you've copied from my country. Your only problem is the EU member states. Can't keep 'em all out.

anyone claiming asylum for fear of their lives should be asked why the hell they went through germany, france and a number of other bloody places just to get their arses here. If their reasonings sound and they are genuinely running for their lives, then that shouldnt be a problem.

Agreed. This is one of the issues I have with the many so-called asylum seekers who attempt to enter Australia illegally.
 
My father was English, and I'm a British citizen - so I have every right to live here for as long as I like, regardless of my qualifications.

But if it helps... I took a Bachelor of Arts degree in Australia, I have vocational qualifications, and I am returning to Australia in January 2009. Happy now? :rolleyes:

Anyway, the UK's immigration situation should improve over the next few years, thanks to the "points-based" system that you've copied from my country. Your only problem is the EU member states. Can't keep 'em all out.



Agreed. This is one of the issues I have with the many so-called asylum seekers who attempt to enter Australia illegally.


well heres hoping the UK improves, and im glad we aggree on some things :) p.s. what type of art are you into if you dont mind me asking ? any works on the net ? p.p.s my previous post wasnt directed at you, just in general :) i did not mean to say you personally should sod off. :p
 
well heres hoping the UK improves, and im glad we aggree on some things :) p.s. what type of art are you into if you dont mind me asking ? any works on the net ? p.p.s my previous post wasnt directed at you, just in general :) i did not mean to say you personally should sod off. :p

Well, I like impressionism and realism, and I did study fine arts at art college. But that has nothing to do with a Bachelor of Arts degree. :confused:
 
I don't want to get dragged into the flame war, but I'm studying an English degree, so hopefully my grasp of the sovereign tongue is better than most.

As far as I was aware, multiculturalism implies a diversity of cultures, nothing more. Integration implies a naturalisation to the local normal resulting in a homogenised culture.

So, you can't have multi-culturalism and integration? You could however have a multicultural society based on similar core values where indivduals hold their own subset of morals and beliefs. The 'respect for fellow man, equality and freedom' sort of thing.

Perfectly happy to be proved wrong though.
 
Shame really. He could foresee the problems mass-immigration would bring, it's just his speeches were tainted with references to race which make people hold views such as:

Powell = a filthy racist.

When he was asked if he was a racist in any sense, he gave this response:

"First of all I must define it because if by being a racialist you mean being concious of differences between men and nations, some of which coincide with differences of race, then we're all racialists I would have thought. But if you mean by racialist a man who despises a human-being because he belongs to a different race or if one man believes one race is inherently superior to another in civilisation or capability of civilisation then the answer is infatigably no."

He didn't dislike a man because of the colour of his skin. His disliked the idea of mass-immigration causing segregation and the tensions it would spark as a result of strain on services (well that's my take on it). It just so happened the people who were causing the mass-immigration weren't white.

He was wrong on some issues but was right on many others IMO. Interesting bloke.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get dragged into the flame war, but I'm studying an English degree, so hopefully my grasp of the sovereign tongue is better than most.

As far as I was aware, multiculturalism implies a diversity of cultures, nothing more. Integration implies a naturalisation to the local normal resulting in a homogenised culture.

True multiculturalism is impossible without government endorsement and socio-cultural integration. Where are you getting your definition of "multiculturalism" from?

If all you need for a "multicultural society" is a diversity of cultures, then Nazi Germany (with the Jews and Poles crammed into ghettos and brutalised by increasingly oppressive legislation) was a "multicultural society". But would you call Nazi Germany a genuine "multicultural society"? I certainly wouldn't.

So, you can't have multi-culturalism and integration?

On the contrary, multiculturalism doesn't work without integration. That's the whole point.

You could however have a multicultural society based on similar core values where indivduals hold their own subset of morals and beliefs. The 'respect for fellow man, equality and freedom' sort of thing.

Perfectly happy to be proved wrong though.[/QUOTE]

I define multiculturalism as a pluralistic society in which the national culture consists of different races, ethnicities and cultures, mutually integrated into a greater whole, co-existing in a state of equality, enabled, and endorsed by government policy. My own country (Australia) adopted multiculturalism as official government policy in 1974. Our national identity is no longer tied to any single race or culture; it is pluralistic, reflecting our culture and population.

The key concepts here are government policy, cultural pluralism, integration, harmonious co-existence, and equality. Without these, you do not have a national multiculture; you merely have a dominant monoculture co-existing with other, smaller monocultures.

Wikipedia defines multiculturalism (as government policy) in a similar way:


Some countries have official, or de jure, multiculturalism policies aimed at preserving the cultures or cultural identities — usually those of immigrant groups — within a unified society. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups, no one culture predominating.

Source.

I accept this as a working definition.
 
Last edited:
Shame really. He could foresee the problems mass-immigration would bring, it's just his speeches were tainted with references to race which make people hold views such as:



When he was asked if he was a racist in any sense, he gave this response:

"First of all I must define it because if by being a racialist you mean being concious of differences between men and nations, some of which coincide with differences of race, then we're all racialists I would have thought. But if you mean by racialist a man who despises a human-being because he belongs to a different race or if one man believes one race is inherently superior to another in civilisation or capability of civilisation then the answer is infatigably no."

He didn't dislike a man because of the colour of his skin. His disliked the idea of mass-immigration causing segregation and the tensions it would spark as a result of strain on services (well that's my take on it). It just so happened the people who were causing the mass-immigration weren't white.

He was wrong on some issues but was right on many others IMO. Interesting bloke.

Why did Powell say "In 15 to 20 years, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man"?

Clearly, he was wrong. But why did he say it?
 
^ Agree.

I was only baiting earlier on, and do not have the time or inclination to learn about this man. I still do not agree with what he had to say from what I have read however.
 
Is it? Can you prove that 51% of all jobs created in the last 10 years went to immigrants purely as a result of positive discrimination?

Last time I checked, they went to immigrants because (a) most of them were unskilled jobs, (b) most of them were also extremely low paid jobs, (c) most of them were jobs that a lot of people didn't want to do, and (d) most of them were jobs for which a great many people were were overqualified.

That's got nothing to do with positive discrimination, and everything to do with market forces. These people aren't taking high-level white collar jobs from noble, hardworking white Britons; they're doing drudge work for rubbish money.

not true at all. not even in the slightest. you only have to look at the public services like the police, fire brigade etc who all have a quota to fill as they have to have a makeup resembling that of the populus.

there have been adverts actively recruiting minorities by the police which i have seen in national papers but unfortunately cant find.

i was disgusted by it frankly as it should be going based on skill, not skin colour or heritage.
 
Why did Powell say "In 15 to 20 years, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man"?

Clearly, he was wrong. But why did he say it?

No idea. You could say he was just a racist who was trying to scare people into holding his views. You could also say he was just mistaken and misjudged the situation.

Why do you think he said that?
 
Just reading the posts of people who agree with him is enough to put me off liking him, without needing to venture as far as watching the documentary.
 
Is it? Can you prove that 51% of all jobs created in the last 10 years went to immigrants purely as a result of positive discrimination?

Last time I checked, they went to immigrants because (a) most of them were unskilled jobs, (b) most of them were also extremely low paid jobs, (c) most of them were jobs that a lot of people didn't want to do, and (d) most of them were jobs for which a great many people were were overqualified.
.

I'm not saying this has any relevance to the subject, but i tried to apply for the prison service via the HM prisons website about 3 weeks ago.

I got through the first 3 pages which asked for:

Name- Mr X
DOB -18/08/1976
Location- lincolnshire (5 prisons in easy commuting distance from my house)
Sex- Male
Marital Status- Married
Religion C of E

And before i got to the page asking for any qualifications, or the state of my health i got:
"Sorry you do not meet the minimum criteria, you will not be able to apply again"
 
Back
Top Bottom