Glasgow Airport-under attack

dirtydog said:
I would also like to see Mosques gone. They aren't British and they don't belong here. Much like the people who frequent them, arguably ;)

DD your posts seem to have descended quite rapidly over the last few months.

how can you possible define what it is to be british by slashing personal liberties and freedom of choice like that.

if you think back, we are a multi faith nation. Yes the majority fall under the "christian" mould of religions.

but what is the "British" religion? COE? Catholic? i dont know, there are a lot of different ones, and personally i wouldnt pick one and define it to be british. i certainly wouldnt then pick the rest and insinuate that they should be closed down and the worshippers sent back home either.

even still, church attendance used to be very high amongst many socio economic groups within the UK.

now adays the majority of famililies do NOT attend church regularly, mainly visiting for occasions where they feel they must, Weddings, Chistenings etc.

are these people "British" if they are not attending church each week? perhaps we should look to these immigrants and the strength they do find in religion and wonder where we have strayed?

or maybe you should think about what Britain really is all about these days before trying to tarnish other groups for their behaviours.
 
dirtydog said:
Yes I would but that's a different and separate issue.

I would disagree, especially as you were the one who brought skin colour into this thread when you starting going on about genocide and how people were trying to wipe whites out. Given that, I'd say your opinion on skin colour certainly does matter, as it was important enough for you to mention as a negative in a largely unrelated thread as more reasons to persecute people...
 
dirtydog said:
It is perfectly simple. We have the right to make demands of them because this is OUR country. It's a bit like if you have guests in your house. You set the ground rules for their behaviour. You don't let them in and then have them start changing things around to suit themselves while you watch on helplessly.

We do set ground rules for everyone, that's what our laws are for, and why they treat everyone equally irrespective of race or background. What you want is to force your own view onto everyone else, something that has far more in common with islamic states than the British one.
 
VIRII said:
There are and always have been limits to tolerance.
We were not always "tolerant" to Islam.

No, we weren't, and yes, there should be limits to our tolerance, especially to those who are intolerant themselves (something many muslim communities are guilty of). That doesn't mean we should try and stamp them out.

We do not have an "immigration rich" history not that future events change past history of course.......

Do we need to look at the history of the English race?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

Or a look at the sort of immigration that's gone on to the United kingdom over the years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_(until_1922)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom

Are we really not a nation with a long history of inward immigration?
 
dirtydog said:
I don't think I'm saying anything different now than I was saying six months, a year or two years ago.

I would actually disagree, certainly with regard to a couple of years ago. I used to consider your views frequently broadly in line with my own regarding immigration and it's issues, but recently I've come to see that's definitely not the case. Whether you are being more open with your real views now, or whether they have changed, I couldn't say, but the image you give now is certainly different from the image I used to have of you.
 
Dolph said:
I would actually disagree, certainly with regard to a couple of years ago. I used to consider your views frequently broadly in line with my own regarding immigration and it's issues, but recently I've come to see that's definitely not the case. Whether you are being more open with your real views now, or whether they have changed, I couldn't say, but the image you give now is certainly different from the image I used to have of you.

My impression is that the several common contributors have allowed their arguments to be framed by other posters - there is a disappointing predictability in the course threads seem to take now and perhaps a lack of willingness for other/moderate contributors to get involved in camped threads.

This isn`t new for forums, even this forum, and isn`t an easy (or necessary) issue to resolve though.I`m not sure that a MYB-style expansive poster remains here - and moderate arguments are inherently less attractive to engage in.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
I would actually disagree, certainly with regard to a couple of years ago. I used to consider your views frequently broadly in line with my own regarding immigration and it's issues, but recently I've come to see that's definitely not the case. Whether you are being more open with your real views now, or whether they have changed, I couldn't say, but the image you give now is certainly different from the image I used to have of you.

ya ive been here a whgile and poked my nose into a lot of threads and i do see a change, maybe only a slught shift - but DD's feeling are certainly coming out a lot more now than before.

so nayway, i took a shower and thought over what i wrote above. and now im maybe more convinced that (although jealousy may be too strong a word) the Mosque and the closeness it brings with certain groups who frequent it is maybe something that we are jealous of? we have lost our own sense of society, of localised society. who really knows their neighbours now? who actively goes to church each week and knows the whole congregation etc?

we are shifyting away from close knit local communities, and then see other groups actively forming theirs. we fear the unknown and thats how prejudice towards other communities can begin...
 
Mr.Clark said:
It proves that however low these criminals stoop, we won't descend to their level.

I see that as a positive thing about this country.

The same as when the tabloids start screaming for blood whenever there's a child molester making the papers.

Killing them won't help, it'll just mean that next time people will make extra sure they won't get caught, and for potential suicide bombers, it's not as if the threat of death is a deterrent anyway...

Hanging a person who tries to explode a jeep in a crowded airport terminal is not stooping to their level in any way shape of form.
Hanging such a person is simply a quick, clean and cost effective way of dealing with them. I'd rather my taxes did not get spent on this persons medical care for the next 40 years or spent on keeping them safe in prison.
 
i hope the cuffs were on nice and tight....

these people don't act in isolation if we can find any of the other b******s then i say help him survive.
 
Dolph said:
No, we weren't, and yes, there should be limits to our tolerance, especially to those who are intolerant themselves (something many muslim communities are guilty of). That doesn't mean we should try and stamp them out.



Do we need to look at the history of the English race?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

Or a look at the sort of immigration that's gone on to the United kingdom over the years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_(until_1922)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom

Are we really not a nation with a long history of inward immigration?

From your link:

The Oxford archaeologist David Miles states that 80% of the genetic makeup of white Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age. This suggests later waves of immigration may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetic homogeneity of the existing population.

Modern humans first arrived in what would become the United Kingdom during the Palaeolithic era. They were followed by the Beaker people (3rd millennium BC), Celts (2nd millennium BC), Romans (1st century BC), Anglo-Saxons (c. 5th century AD) and Vikings (8th century AD). In 1066, the Normans successfully took control of England and, in subsequent years, there was some migration from France. In the 19th century, immigration by people outside Europe began on a small scale as people arrived from the British colonies. This increased during the 20th century.

So basically between 1066 and about 1950 we had very little immigration.
Hence NO we are not a country who has a long history of multiculturalism or rich immigration. We got conquered in 1066, then after WW2 we had a tiny bit of immigration and then very recently the floodgates opened.

Your links don't seem to back you up.

Oh and your first Wiki link seems to clear up who the English are :

The English are a nation native to England and speak English. The largest single population of English people reside in England — the largest constituent country of both Great Britain and the United Kingdom.[1]
 
Mr.Clark said:
You'd rather they were sent somewhere that we couldn't keep an eye on them and know that they weren't ever going to be released to go straight back to their mates?

We don't execute people in this country any more. It's called being civilised.

Oh the irony.

At work today about 5 customers (all asian muslims) were talking about the glasgow incident and I heard "shoot the *******" and other similar worded phrases from most of them..
 
VIRII said:
From your link:

The Oxford archaeologist David Miles states that 80% of the genetic makeup of white Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age. This suggests later waves of immigration may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetic homogeneity of the existing population.

Modern humans first arrived in what would become the United Kingdom during the Palaeolithic era. They were followed by the Beaker people (3rd millennium BC), Celts (2nd millennium BC), Romans (1st century BC), Anglo-Saxons (c. 5th century AD) and Vikings (8th century AD). In 1066, the Normans successfully took control of England and, in subsequent years, there was some migration from France. In the 19th century, immigration by people outside Europe began on a small scale as people arrived from the British colonies. This increased during the 20th century.

So basically between 1066 and about 1950 we had very little immigration.
Hence NO we are not a country who has a long history of multiculturalism or rich immigration. We got conquered in 1066, then after WW2 we had a tiny bit of immigration and then very recently the floodgates opened.

Your links don't seem to back you up.

Leave genetics out of this - they've done no harm to you.

I think that you miss a point - that local immigration has been common within the 884 years that you think defined "the nation", look at the Irish in Liverpool for example. You also overstate and misrepresent this period of stability as homogenization - something that it clearly was not.

As a comment, I`m fairly sure that the 80% genetic inheritance figure will prove to be an overestimation. These studies are difficult to reliably sample.
 
sedm1000 said:
Leave genetics out of this - they've done no harm to you.

I think that you miss a point - that local immigration has been common within the 884 years that you think defined "the nation", look at the Irish in Liverpool for example. You also overstate and misrepresent this period of stability as homogenization - something that it clearly was not.

As a comment, I`m fairly sure that the 80% genetic inheritance figure will prove to be an overestimation. These studies are difficult to reliably sample.

I merely quoted his links :)
The links which he proffered as evidence of "our rich history of immigration" which quite frankly never existed.

As for local immigration - very little pre industrial revolution. And those that immigrated here from Ireland were ultimately very compatible and from part of the UK anyway - although some of them did not wish to be part of the UK of course.
 
VIRII said:
From your link:

The Oxford archaeologist David Miles states that 80% of the genetic makeup of white Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age. This suggests later waves of immigration may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetic homogeneity of the existing population.

Modern humans first arrived in what would become the United Kingdom during the Palaeolithic era. They were followed by the Beaker people (3rd millennium BC), Celts (2nd millennium BC), Romans (1st century BC), Anglo-Saxons (c. 5th century AD) and Vikings (8th century AD). In 1066, the Normans successfully took control of England and, in subsequent years, there was some migration from France. In the 19th century, immigration by people outside Europe began on a small scale as people arrived from the British colonies. This increased during the 20th century.

So basically between 1066 and about 1950 we had very little immigration.
Hence NO we are not a country who has a long history of multiculturalism or rich immigration. We got conquered in 1066, then after WW2 we had a tiny bit of immigration and then very recently the floodgates opened.

Your links don't seem to back you up.

They do if you quote the whole paragraph, including the caveats and counters, rather than the bit that suits you ;)

Modern humans first arrived in what would become the United Kingdom during the Palaeolithic era. They were followed by the Beaker people (3rd millennium BC), Celts (2nd millennium BC), Romans (1st century BC), Anglo-Saxons (c. 5th century AD) and Vikings (8th century AD). In 1066, the Normans successfully took control of England and, in subsequent years, there was some migration from France. In the 19th century, immigration by people outside Europe began on a small scale as people arrived from the British colonies. This increased during the 20th century.

Despite these great movements of people, some early investigations have shown that the biological influence of pre-20th century immigration on Britain may have been rather small, marked more by continuity than change. The Oxford archaeologist David Miles states that 80% of the genetic makeup of white Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age. This suggests later waves of immigration may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetic homogeneity of the existing population. However, Miles acknowledged himself that the techniques used to explore genetic ancestry are still in their infancy and that many more samples are needed to fully understand the origins of the British people.[1] Geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer has recently argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor Celts may have had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that British ancestry can be traced back to ancient peoples similar to the modern-day Basques instead.[2] Current estimates on the initial contribution of Anglo-Saxon migrants range from less than 10,000 to as many as 200,000, although some recent Y-chromosome studies posit a considerably large continental (Germanic) contribution to the current English gene pool (50-100%). A recent study by a team from the Department of Biology at UCL based on computer simulations indicate that an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England provides a plausible explanation for a high-degree of continental male-line ancestry in England.[3]The Oxford archaeologist David Miles states that 80% of the genetic makeup of white Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age. This suggests later waves of immigration may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetic homogeneity of the existing population. However, Miles acknowledged himself that the techniques used to explore genetic ancestry are still in their infancy and that many more samples are needed to fully understand the origins of the British people.[1] Geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer has recently argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor Celts may have had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that British ancestry can be traced back to ancient peoples similar to the modern-day Basques instead.[2] Current estimates on the initial contribution of Anglo-Saxon migrants range from less than 10,000 to as many as 200,000, although some recent Y-chromosome studies posit a considerably large continental (Germanic) contribution to the current English gene pool (50-100%). A recent study by a team from the Department of Biology at UCL based on computer simulations indicate that an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England provides a plausible explanation for a high-degree of continental male-line ancestry in England.[3]

Not quite as clear when quoted in full is it? Snipping and rearranging the text and posting it as an accurate representation of information in the link isn't exactly a good debating tactic.

Oh and your first Wiki link seems to clear up who the English are :

The English are a nation native to England and speak English. The largest single population of English people reside in England — the largest constituent country of both Great Britain and the United Kingdom.[1]

Did you not read further down?

The English trace their heritage largely to the Anglo-Saxons,[2] the Romano-Britons,[3] the Danish-Vikings[4] that formed the Danelaw during the time of Alfred the Great, and the Normans.[5][6] The name of England derives from the Angles.

Romano-British is a collective term used to describe the native Brythonic-speaking Celtic population that lived in the area of Britain under Roman rule, known as Britannia, during the 1st-5th C. AD. It is generally believed they are among the descendants of the first wave of hunter-gatherers to colonise Britain after the end of the Ice Age. It was until recently, generally believed that a mass invasion by various Anglo-Saxon tribes largely displaced the indigenous British population except in Wales and Cornwall, but recent genetic surveys have contradicted this view somewhat. [7] Some archaeologists see only limited evidence of immigration in the record. Francis Pryor states "I also can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic."[8] Archaeological discoveries suggest that North Africans may have had a very limited presence in those parts of Britain that were to become England at the time of the Roman Empire.[9][10]

[edit]
Anglo-Saxons
Further information: Anglo-Saxons, Sub-Roman Britain

Anglo-Saxon is a collective term usually used to describe the population living in Anglo-Saxon held territory in the south and east of the island of Great Britain (modern England) from around the mid-5th century AD to the Norman conquest of 1066.[11] The Anglo-Saxons are believed to originate from Germanic tribes that migrated from southern Denmark and northern Germany in the 5th C. AD. It has been suggested that Germanic immigrants and Germanic auxiliary troops in the Roman army may have settled in Britain long before the departure of the Roman legions in AD 410; indeed Germanic auxiliary troops may even have been involved in the Roman invasion of the island in the 1st century A.D. [12] This same process occurred in many other provinces along the Roman border with the Germani, and Germanic tribes accepted as foederati.

[edit]
Danish-Vikings
Further information: Danelaw, Vikings, Treaty of Wedmore, Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum

By the time of the first Viking attacks around 800 AD, the numerous petty kingdoms in south and east Britain had coalesced into what is commonly referred to as the Heptarchy. The most powerful of these at this time were Mercia and Wessex. The increasing pressure of Viking attack led to more cooperation between Wessex and Mercia; most notably, this period saw the rise of Alfred the Great, the only English born King of England to be titled 'the great'.

Alfred defeated a Danish army at the Battle of Edington in 878, coming to terms with the Danish leader Guthrum. After the Battle of Edington, Alfred negotiated the Danelaw with the Danes, resulting in a settlement of Danish-Vikings in northern and eastern England.[13] These groups had a noticeable impact on the English language; for example, the modern meaning of the word dream is of Old Norse origin.[14] Additionally place names that include thwaite and by are Scandinavian in origin.[15]

Quoting a small selection of a large article (especially incomplete paragraphs) and claiming it doesn't support something is really quite dishonest in a debate...
 
Last edited:
Incredible!

"Glasgow Airport-under attack" morphs magically into a discussion of the origins of the British people - and guess who is at the centre of this particular transformation :(
 
VIRII said:
I merely quoted his links :)
The links which he proffered as evidence of "our rich history of immigration" which quite frankly never existed.

As for local immigration - very little pre industrial revolution. And those that immigrated here from Ireland were ultimately very compatible and from part of the UK anyway - although some of them did not wish to be part of the UK of course.

I know, but your attempt to refute them is not so sound either. Mentioning the industrial revolution shaves another 100+ years off the 884 figure.

Locale - this is a double edged thingy. A very important aspect that is largely ignored in this debate is the local history of the country, and that population mobility has been historically limited. Small numbers of immigrants locally can leave a large cultural and genetic legacy. Equally, there is some divergence amongst local populations - Cornish culture is quite different to that of north eastern England, and again to that of Lancashire.

This idea of a homogenous England prior to immigration is not really true. The differences are perhaps less than those between people of different countries, as they have diverged earlier and developed in their own way, but the idea that we can group white britons as by a shared cultural, historic and genetic identity is tenuous. Much of the current confusion is fueled by the desire to simplify a complex history into an easy to understand story.
 
VIRII said:
I merely quoted his links :)
The links which he proffered as evidence of "our rich history of immigration" which quite frankly never existed.

No you didn't, you cut parts out and rearranged them, then quoted them claiming they were the links. That's not quite the same thing ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom