: Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:49 pm  

Alexs Dad wrote:

I'd agree the BNP are not the answer, but also agree with many of their socialist policies that you haven't mentioned, instead picking up on the negative.

In current times, protectionism isnt such a bad thing IMO. Lets be honest, if both our families were desperatley hungry, would you feed yours before mine?

France have started to do it with Renault by moving production from Slovenia, and fair play to them for having the guts to rev up the EU. Trading conditions, currency strengths (or weakness), shipping costs, and the rising cost of both living and personal expectations in the Far East means that dirt cheap imports will slowly become a thing of the past.

Once eastern Europe is brought into the 21st century and thier economies are stronger, do you think they will care about the UK? Their expectations will also rise, so again, cheap labour and imprts from the these destinations will dilute.

That eventually makes 'Made in Britain' more economically viable and if it means doing it now then so be it. Is that protectionism or seizing the opportunity?

Personally I would have liked to see the VAT reduction scrapped and the billions it (supposedly) generates invested on manufacturing facilites in the UK. 'Made in Britain' for the long term. It's not such a bad thing. British jobs, British taxes, British benefits for our society whatever colour they are. It can sit alongside a global economy quite easily. Multinationals, importers, exporters, overall consumers; they dont care where it comes from so long as the price is right. Their political handwringing of 'ohh we dont buy British becuase they stopped importing cheap shoes from Taiwan' isnt going to happen is it?

But am I right in thinking now that you do accept our immigraiton policy has generated a lot of social problems for the UK? If thats the case then we're getting somewhere.

The horse has bolted now anyway so its a bit late to do anything. Though making the place more attractive to settle than anywhere else in western Europe has caused more problems than it has solved.

It is impossible to compare first generation Asians and West Indians, or even our Ukranian comminuty with the current situation. What happened after WW2 and the labour shortages (not to mention our responbilities at the tale end of the Empire years) is nothing like what has happened in the last 10 years.

Back then, (take aside racism, that will always occur), our borders could pretty much sustain a huge influx of migrants or refugees.

The levels we have had since the turn of the century have not, never were, and never will be sustainable.

Bloody hell, you can tell there's nowt on telly part from 6 Nations

Excellent post. Especially the last sentence

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:14 am  

Alexs Dad wrote:

But am I right in thinking now that you do accept our immigration policy has generated a lot of social problems for the UK? If thats the case then we're getting somewhere.

Immigration is a complex thing. We are, essentially, an immigrant nation, and always have been... social questions rising from immigration have been with us for hundreds of years.... Elizabeth 1 commented on the number of 'nigres' in the realm, while Daniel Defoe wrote his satirical poem mocking those who criticise immigration, entitled 'A true-born Englishman', in the early 18th Century.

Mass immigration in the post-war years was instigated to rebuild Britain using Commonwealth labour... that in itself a legacy of British colonial conquest in the preceding 300+ years. Despite the misgivings (scaremongering, race-hate) of the far right, it worked remarkably well. Nobody could seriously doubt the contributions made by the afrocarribean and sub-continental communities to the social, sporting, cultural and political vibrancy of this country.

In recent years, though, we've seen the global rise of militant (Wahabist) Islam, founded and funded by the Saudis, encouraged by us and the USA as a buffer against the Soviet union, developed into nationhood in some places by the breakup of the USSR, and finally turned on us in response to our role in, particularly, the Arab world and Afghanistan. As that trend has manifest itself, its become more and more apparent that militant Islam has its advocates and followers in some of our own communities, even as we have taken on some of those peoples displaced by our actions in Iraq and elsewhere.

At the same time, the EU has expanded to include accession countries in the former Eastern Bloc, and we have extended greater freedoms of movement to people from the accession states than many of our EU partners.

So, a complex picture then, leaving us with issues which are in part a result of our colonial history, in part because of a recent-historic failure to set criteria for integration through immigration, and in part a response to recent political circumstances. Most of the problems have a long and complex history of their own.

IMHO Britain, for a long long time, did not insist upon or do anything to encourage a base level of familiarity with and support for our own cultural norms. We have, for a very long time, provided translation services to immigrants when we should have been providing English lessons, and insisting on a core competency in our language, and base knowledge of our culture, from those choosing to come here.

The irony in many of the complaints about British immigration policy is that most of these issues have now been addressed. It is - now - very hard to get into the UK. You have to take language and socio-cultural exams. You have to have qualifications or skills that are demonstrably in short supply, not just in the UK but anywhere in the EU. Large scale net immigration has prompted a Governmental response, and immigration into the UK from outside the EU is massively reduced on a couple of years ago. The demographic trends that the BNP cite are already in reverse, and the UK is likely to become a net exporter of people over the next few years.

There's a further problem here, one systematically avoided by every government, and again one in direct contravention to Mookachaka's position. Mookachaka said earlier we should promote Christianity. But that's a problem. We allow, even encourage, church schools; the monarch is the head of the C of E, Bishops sit in the Lords as of right. And the spin-off of that is that we permit, even encourage, faith schools of other religions, and allocate a role to religious conviction in social and political life that it should not have.

Even within the Christian community, you end up with protestant and catholic kids growing up in exclusive neighbourhoods and never meeting those from across the tracks. Would the Irish troubles have run for so long if every kid had had to go to the nearest school, regardless of faith? I doubt it. But now, because of the privileged position we have given religion, we have third generation sub-continental kids going to Muslim schools, learning the Koran in class, speaking their familial languages in school and at home. This is just plain wrong... it's divisive and it’s problematic, building up insular communities excluded from, and antagonistic to, the mainstream.

As far as EU accession immigration is concerned, the economic indicators suggest that this has been of net benefit to the UK. Put simply, the Poles, Slovaks and Romanians who have come here have paid more in taxes, and done more in terms of contribution to the GDP, than they have taken out in healthcare, schooling and other services. This makes sense when you think about it... people in their 20s and 30s are net contributors, they work and pay taxes, while post-retirement age people pay less and use more services, particularly healthcare and pensions. The EU immigrants are, generally, young fit workers, not old ailing retirees.

Asylum seekers are a different issue... this country takes its share of those seeking a safe haven from persecution. They are not generously treated... they get a roof and food, but they aren't allowed to work and get subsistence-level support, lower than benefits. This leads to some working illegally on the fringes of the black economy, and to all being branded as a drain on our resources... possibly true, but a result of the prohibitions on their being allowed to do anything else.

Some people try to take advantage of the asylum system... claims take too long to process, but when those not entitled to asylum work their way through the system, they are deported. For some, who have travelled through safe countries to reach the UK, they too are sent back to the land first passage... but again, this doesn't happen quickly enough and is not as well managed and policed as it should be.

Immigration has brought tremendous benefits to the UK... our unprecedented decade of continuous growth is in large part as a result of our flexibility of labour markets. But some issues have been allowed to go unmonitored and unmetered, and now we are in recession, suddenly jobs are scarce, people are struggling, the system is under tremendous strain, and the issues of immigration then come to the fore.

We need to deal more quickly with asylum claims, and chuck out failed asylum seekers much more quickly. This is improving, but its still not there. We need to be much more bullish with our EU and international partners in ensuring they, too, take up their share of refugees and asylum seekers.

We do have two big problems that most of Europe doesn't have: we have a huge colonial legacy, meaning millions of people around the world have relatives living in Britain; and our language is the second-language of choice all over the world. But that's no damn excuse, and Poland, Slovenia, Italy, and so on, can all take on the responsibilities which go together with the privileges of EU membership.

The accession immigrants are looking after themselves.. the pound is worth less, the opportunities in Eastern Europe are greater now, and many people are just going home. Those that choose to stay are those who have chosen to become integrated into our society... these people are not, and will not, be a problem to us, any more than Simon Svabic and Sean Penkywicz are.

As I've said, it is now extremely difficult to legally enter the UK for work. That system is in place, and is sound, but it is relatively new, and it will take a while before we really see the change.

We do have some issues with illegals… but that’s not an immigration issue per se, it’s a law enforcement issue. Illegal immigrants, by definition, are here illegally. Its not our immigration policies that are at fault, it’s the policing of them. Round them up, send them back, tighten the borders. Do it more quickly and more effectively.

The biggest problem though, still, is the integration of the communities that are already here. My solution would be, dis-establish the church, ban religious content from the curriculum, strip to a miminum translation services and replace them with English lessons, get rid of the leaflets on benefit claiming in Gujarati and Hungarian. None of this will make a difference overnight. All of it will benefit our sense of national identity and community in the long run. I'd also add in to that... let's have an English parliament, and open a real discussion on what makes us proud of our nation and our heritage.

We also need to explain - to everyone, whether they have been here for generations or months - what is expected of them, what they must do to be part of our society, and what they can receive in return. It needs to be absolutely transparent what is necessary to be regarded a citizen of this great country... and in turn, then, what you can expect and by what criteria your needs will be judged....

...in other words, if you ARE British, legally and as of right, you should get a helping hand if you need it on the basis of priority according to your need... you shouldn't jump the queue either because you're grandparents lived here, or because you've just got here... if you're a Brit, you get the same treatment as every other Brit, and if you're not a Brit, or you're not prepared to take on the responsibilities of Britons to all communities within Britain, then you're welcome to leave any time (regardless of whether you came here or were born here, regardless of colour or religion).

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:23 am  

Mookachaka wrote: critisize the immegration policy then i might start taking your side The lines from the BNP page you recommended are in italics, with my comments beneath. IMMIGRATION - time to say ENOUGH! On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. This is scaremongering, and is just not the case. The key word is 'current'... and that word is undefined. Yes, for half a dozen years, the UK experienced higher levels of immingration. But that is a short-term trend, influenced by one-off events like the wars in Iraq and Afghansistan, the collapse of Zimbabwe, and the accession of the eastern European states into the EU. All demographics show that immigration levels vary, and all past experience shows that the fundamental makeup of British society carries a continuum without undergoing radical change. Moreover, many of those who did come into our land in the last 5-10 years are now going home again... Poles now the pound is worth less and their own economy is improving, Iraqis now their country is becoming a safe democracy rather than a war-torn dictatorship, and so on. Added to that, there's a more fundamental lie here... immigrants may not be native British people, but their kids are (native means born here, from Latin via French). The children of immigrants are the Svabic and Drummond and Martyn and Manfredi kids. Britain in 60 years will be different from Britain today, regardless of whether the Britons of 60 years' time were born of English-born or immigrant parents... but they will be Britons nonetheless. ...unless by 'native British people' the BNP don't actually mean people born here... unless they mean white people.... but surely the BNP wouldn't be racist, so lets take them at their word. And their word, here, is rubbish... in 60 years, the overwhelming majority of people living in Britain will have been born here, just as is the case now. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question. There's a lot here. First, 'British people retain their homeland and identity'. Most of the Muslim kids in Bradford and Leicester are British... this is the land of their birth, the only homeland they have ever known.... but somehow I don't think this is the homeland and identity that the BNP wants to preserve. So, we're into a discussion of what it means to be British. Me, I take the wide view... we're not the same in Leigh as they are in London, nor are my neighbours in Exeter the same as the Geordies. Our land and language are famed for welcoming allcomers, for adapting them and accommodating them and making them part of the larger, richer definition of English and of Britishness. Scots are scots and welsh are welsh and English are English and the Afrocarribean communities are afrocarribbean, but they all fit in the broad church of Britishness, and three cheers for that. Next... the BNP will call for an immediate halt to all further immigration. ALL? So, if there aren't enough trained nurses willing to work for the NHS rather than take their qualifications to the higher-earning economies in Australia and the USA, we won't welcome in any more Philipino or Nigerian medical staff? We'll let our patients go without care because we don't want any immigrants?? And if our companies need specialist technicians, we'd rather lose our competitive edge rather than bring in world-class expertise, even when we lose our export markets, and the British economy nosedives as foreign competitors, who can and will recruit the best in the world, take our businesses apart? Oh, and when our industry stutters for want of world leading talent, then our own talented people will of course follow the money and leave our lands.. And what about our university system, which is funded almost completely by the money charged to foreign students? No more immigration at all, remember, so no more chinese and american kids at college here, so a shortfall of billions in funding the education of our next-generation of entrepeneurs and business leaders... so, short term crisis, long term catastrophe, as the world enters the information age and our higher-education system crumbles... ...you think this is far fetched, but the only way to legally enter the UK is as a student, or as the possessor of specialist skills at work that no EU citizen can offer. It is very very hard to come to the UK to work, and under the new laws only the best in their field get in. Cut ourselves off from that, and we are crippling the long-term viability of the UK economy. "the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants"... Couldn't agree more. In fact that's what illegal immigrant means, someone who's not allowed to be here. Nothing controversial in this. We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. Where? Show me, go on. Show me five ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that make white Britons second class citizens. Not where Britons play second fiddle to immigrants, because that’s not what you said. You made this specifically and exclusively about skin colour. I say you are stirring up race hatred. You show me where white Britons are discriminated against in favour of non-white Britons. Show me these schemes. Tell me who operates them, and on what basis is skin-colour used to favour any given ethic group. We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries. Well, you're already a bit late on this one. Asylum applications in 2008 were at their lowest level for 14 years, and are still falling. But this kind of comment is one borne of, and fostering, ignorance... ..the idea that we take disproportionately high numbers of asylum seekers... which isn't true. Take a look at this article, for example... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/number-of-iraqis-claiming-asylum-in-europe-doubles-797189.html ...notice that, in the case of Iraqis, Sweden receives nine times more Iraqi asylum seekers than the UK, which is behind even Greece... and on top of that, only one in eight asylum seekers is granted asylum... seven in eight, here, are refused. Notice, too, that Syria has 1.2 million Iraqis living there in exile... while we have 0.2% of that number claiming asylum here... most of whom will be sent back... leaving us with 0.025% of the number of Iraqi immigrants that Syria has. Er, so, that IS most of them finding refuge near their homeland, that IS Britain receiving far fewer asylum claims than other EU countries, that IS Britain rejecting the overwhelming majority of even this small number of claims. There has been a problem with immigration and asylum seeking. It has been addressed, effectively, by the current Government (belatedly, and not without ongoing compliance problems, but its not the problem it was or is made out to be) The BNP's policies, as per their manifesto, would be exceptionally damaging for Britain's economic position, and are driven by ideology, not by what's good for Britain, but by a scaremongering and inaccurate attempt to blame foreigners (mostly) and non-white Britons (revealingly) for all society's ills.

Mookachaka wrote: critisize the immegration policy then i might start taking your side The lines from the BNP page you recommended are in italics, with my comments beneath. IMMIGRATION - time to say ENOUGH! On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. This is scaremongering, and is just not the case. The key word is 'current'... and that word is undefined. Yes, for half a dozen years, the UK experienced higher levels of immingration. But that is a short-term trend, influenced by one-off events like the wars in Iraq and Afghansistan, the collapse of Zimbabwe, and the accession of the eastern European states into the EU. All demographics show that immigration levels vary, and all past experience shows that the fundamental makeup of British society carries a continuum without undergoing radical change. Moreover, many of those who did come into our land in the last 5-10 years are now going home again... Poles now the pound is worth less and their own economy is improving, Iraqis now their country is becoming a safe democracy rather than a war-torn dictatorship, and so on. Added to that, there's a more fundamental lie here... immigrants may not be native British people, but their kids are (native means born here, from Latin via French). The children of immigrants are the Svabic and Drummond and Martyn and Manfredi kids. Britain in 60 years will be different from Britain today, regardless of whether the Britons of 60 years' time were born of English-born or immigrant parents... but they will be Britons nonetheless. ...unless by 'native British people' the BNP don't actually mean people born here... unless they mean white people.... but surely the BNP wouldn't be racist, so lets take them at their word. And their word, here, is rubbish... in 60 years, the overwhelming majority of people living in Britain will have been born here, just as is the case now. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question. There's a lot here. First, 'British people retain their homeland and identity'. Most of the Muslim kids in Bradford and Leicester are British... this is the land of their birth, the only homeland they have ever known.... but somehow I don't think this is the homeland and identity that the BNP wants to preserve. So, we're into a discussion of what it means to be British. Me, I take the wide view... we're not the same in Leigh as they are in London, nor are my neighbours in Exeter the same as the Geordies. Our land and language are famed for welcoming allcomers, for adapting them and accommodating them and making them part of the larger, richer definition of English and of Britishness. Scots are scots and welsh are welsh and English are English and the Afrocarribean communities are afrocarribbean, but they all fit in the broad church of Britishness, and three cheers for that. Next... the BNP will call for an immediate halt to all further immigration. ALL? So, if there aren't enough trained nurses willing to work for the NHS rather than take their qualifications to the higher-earning economies in Australia and the USA, we won't welcome in any more Philipino or Nigerian medical staff? We'll let our patients go without care because we don't want any immigrants?? And if our companies need specialist technicians, we'd rather lose our competitive edge rather than bring in world-class expertise, even when we lose our export markets, and the British economy nosedives as foreign competitors, who can and will recruit the best in the world, take our businesses apart? Oh, and when our industry stutters for want of world leading talent, then our own talented people will of course follow the money and leave our lands.. And what about our university system, which is funded almost completely by the money charged to foreign students? No more immigration at all, remember, so no more chinese and american kids at college here, so a shortfall of billions in funding the education of our next-generation of entrepeneurs and business leaders... so, short term crisis, long term catastrophe, as the world enters the information age and our higher-education system crumbles... ...you think this is far fetched, but the only way to legally enter the UK is as a student, or as the possessor of specialist skills at work that no EU citizen can offer. It is very very hard to come to the UK to work, and under the new laws only the best in their field get in. Cut ourselves off from that, and we are crippling the long-term viability of the UK economy. "the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants"... Couldn't agree more. In fact that's what illegal immigrant means, someone who's not allowed to be here. Nothing controversial in this. We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. Where? Show me, go on. Show me five ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that make white Britons second class citizens. Not where Britons play second fiddle to immigrants, because that’s not what you said. You made this specifically and exclusively about skin colour. I say you are stirring up race hatred. You show me where white Britons are discriminated against in favour of non-white Britons. Show me these schemes. Tell me who operates them, and on what basis is skin-colour used to favour any given ethic group. We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries. Well, you're already a bit late on this one. Asylum applications in 2008 were at their lowest level for 14 years, and are still falling. But this kind of comment is one borne of, and fostering, ignorance... ..the idea that we take disproportionately high numbers of asylum seekers... which isn't true. Take a look at this article, for example... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/number-of-iraqis-claiming-asylum-in-europe-doubles-797189.html ...notice that, in the case of Iraqis, Sweden receives nine times more Iraqi asylum seekers than the UK, which is behind even Greece... and on top of that, only one in eight asylum seekers is granted asylum... seven in eight, here, are refused. Notice, too, that Syria has 1.2 million Iraqis living there in exile... while we have 0.2% of that number claiming asylum here... most of whom will be sent back... leaving us with 0.025% of the number of Iraqi immigrants that Syria has. Er, so, that IS most of them finding refuge near their homeland, that IS Britain receiving far fewer asylum claims than other EU countries, that IS Britain rejecting the overwhelming majority of even this small number of claims. There has been a problem with immigration and asylum seeking. It has been addressed, effectively, by the current Government (belatedly, and not without ongoing compliance problems, but its not the problem it was or is made out to be) The BNP's policies, as per their manifesto, would be exceptionally damaging for Britain's economic position, and are driven by ideology, not by what's good for Britain, but by a scaremongering and inaccurate attempt to blame foreigners (mostly) and non-white Britons (revealingly) for all society's ills.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:10 am  

Wembley71 wrote:

Round them up, send them back, tighten the borders. Do it more quickly and more effectively.

strip to a miminum translation services and replace them with English lessons, get rid of the leaflets on benefit claiming in Gujarati and Hungarian.

open a real discussion on what makes us proud of our nation and our heritage.

We also need to explain - to everyone, whether they have been here for generations or months - what is expected of them,

if you're a Brit, you get the same treatment as every other Brit, and if you're not a Brit, or you're not prepared to take on the responsibilities of Britons to all communities within Britain, then you're welcome to leave any time (regardless of whether you came here or were born here, regardless of colour or religion).

Why didn't you say all that a week ago, it would have saved about 12 pages

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:33 am  

Alexs Dad wrote:

Why didn't you say all that a week ago, it would have saved about 12 pages

...but that's the problem, though.... its a complicated subject, you can't have these selected quotes without the 12 pages. The tabloids deal only in the selected quotes, and the BNP depend upon nobody bringing up the 12 pages of discussion, history, context etc, until all we have are slogans with no substance but with the power to create fear and hatred.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:20 am  

Wembley71 wrote:

The biggest problem though, still, is the integration of the communities that are already here. My solution would be, dis-establish the church, ban religious content from the curriculum, strip to a miminum translation services and replace them with English lessons, get rid of the leaflets on benefit claiming in Gujarati and Hungarian. None of this will make a difference overnight. All of it will benefit our sense of national identity and community in the long run. I'd also add in to that... let's have an English parliament, and open a real discussion on what makes us proud of our nation and our heritage.

We also need to explain - to everyone, whether they have been here for generations or months - what is expected of them, what they must do to be part of our society, and what they can receive in return. It needs to be absolutely transparent what is necessary to be regarded a citizen of this great country... and in turn, then, what you can expect and by what criteria your needs will be judged....

...in other words, if you ARE British, legally and as of right, you should get a helping hand if you need it on the basis of priority according to your need... you shouldn't jump the queue either because you're grandparents lived here, or because you've just got here... if you're a Brit, you get the same treatment as every other Brit, and if you're not a Brit, or you're not prepared to take on the responsibilities of Britons to all communities within Britain, then you're welcome to leave any time (regardless of whether you came here or were born here, regardless of colour or religion).

The big problem W71. Religeon. In order for our native religeons ( catholic, protestant, hindu, urdu, and muslim) to be taken out of the schools you had be ready for the rioting it will cause and it wont come from the first four of the religeons that I mentioned. The doo gooders in succesive governments have given in too much to these comunities and I believe that the religeon thing is probabley the root of the rise in racism.
When communities can see there churches being knocked down and new mosques being built, then what are the locals going to think?
I totaly agree with every one of these communities having to speak english first and foremost.
We were frightened of treading on some of these peoples toes so have left them to their own devices.
As you very rightly said W71 "intigration" is (or was) the key to a lot of the problems that we are now facing and I hope they come up with a well thought out answer to them. Not some knee jerk one that is debated in front of half a dozen MP's at midnight.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:51 am  

TV BOY wrote:

The big problem W71. Religeon. In order for our native religeons ( catholic, protestant, hindu, urdu, and muslim) to be taken out of the schools you had be ready for the rioting it will cause and it wont come from the first four of the religeons that I mentioned. The doo gooders in succesive governments have given in too much to these comunities and I believe that the religeon thing is probabley the root of the rise in racism.
When communities can see there churches being knocked down and new mosques being built, then what are the locals going to think?
I totaly agree with every one of these communities having to speak english first and foremost.
We were frightened of treading on some of these peoples toes so have left them to their own devices.
As you very rightly said W71 "intigration" is (or was) the key to a lot of the problems that we are now facing and I hope they come up with a well thought out answer to them. Not some knee jerk one that is debated in front of half a dozen MP's at midnight.

Urdu is a language - not a religion!!

And, if "churches are being knocked down, and new mosques being built" - this would indicate to me that the churches were not being used. I am not aware (post Reformation) of any churches being pulled down for anything other than economic reasons (i.e. no longer having enough regular attendees to maintain the up-keep of church buildings)
If churches are being compulsorily purchased, and parishes forced out, to facilitate the building of mosques then that would be a scandal. If you have evidence of this, please provide the links!!

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:03 pm  

Again, the perceived issues of religion conflicting with nationalism are not new. Germany, as a nation-state, was founded only in the last 30 years of the 19th century. At that point, there was a major rift between the Protestant, Prussian-dominated northern lands (who were the drivers behind the unification of the disparate German states), and the southern, Catholic areas.

It was thought that Catholics, owing an allegiance to the Pope which used divine authority to override any obligations to nationhood, meant that Bavarians could never truly be Germans. This period of persecution of Catholics, and tensions between the two communities, was called the Kulturkampf ('Cultural struggle').

As I'm sure you all know, within 40 years of this, southern Germany became the base for the most rabid, vehement and poisonous nationalist movement the world has ever seen, led by a Roman Catholic Austrian with uncontrollable flatulence (true), Herr Adolf the b@stard.

We have similar issues expressed in the perceived conflict between loyalty to Britain and loyalty to Islam. I don't have a simple answer to this, but the historical evidence from Germany, at least, is that time will erode those cultural struggles, and in a generation or two, the issue will have ceased to be an issue...

...unless, of course, we allow religous groups to run schools, keep their kids apart, tell their kids all other religions are wrong but the one true God is with them, and so on. And that goes for all religions.

I'd go so far as to join Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in proclaiming that 'taching kids to follow a particular religion is child abuse', but not everyone (including my catholic missus) would go that far. But certainly religion should not be a reason to keep kids from different backgrounds apart in the school system.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:50 pm  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovEYffjvsBY watch this, if people voting for the BNP are stupid, got knows what people who vote for anyone else are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovEYffjvsBY watch this, if people voting for the BNP are stupid, got knows what people who vote for anyone else are.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:32 pm  

After such a crap day I do not want to be reading this nonsense on here.
This thread should have been banished 16 pages ago.
This is for RL not for party political broadcasts for the numbskull party or a platform for wishy washy liberals or sons and daughters of thatcher.

Our right wing and soft centre are the real and only debate.