- This topic has 199 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Thanks for your comments, Lolly’s Mate. I will try and refrain from the exclamation marks and the rather hysterical capital letters you employed.
There are so many half-truths and absurdities in your post, its difficult to know where to begin. But lets take a deep breath and dive in.
The riots of which you speak were about race. I agree with that. The black communities in those areas felt that they were the victims of racism. Riots ensued. I don’t intend to support either the police or the rioters. The rioters perpetrated acts of violence that were appalling. The police before and since then have perpetrated abuses of power that were appalling. But the riots did not prove Enoch Powell right. He predicted violence between immigrants and non-immigrants. The riots we are talking about were between the police and certain sections of the black community. Furthermore, as I have said, I live and work with many people who are the descendants of immigrants or who are immigrants themselves. Millions of people up and down the country have the same experience. Enoch Powell was wrong because he thought that we could not live side by side with immigrants. Millions of ordinary people, by getting on with their lives, working and living together prove him wrong every single day.
You then invite me to ‘wake up and smell the roses’. I think the expression you are groping for is ‘smell the coffee’, but lets not quibble. You then say that roses are a symbol of England and are ‘not allowed’. Really? I wasn’t aware of a ban on roses. I have roses in my garden. Should I be concerned? Has the government been sending squads of civil servants around the country uprooting roses? Is Monty Don under arrest? I think we should be told.
You see, it is absurd little comments like this that lead me to think that you have no real arguments, but prefer to whine and whinge with rather prissy little complaints that have no basis in reality and only serve to create the impression of a sulky teenager. Fine if you are a teenager, but I suspect you’re not.
But lets move on from the horticulturally absurd to the patently ridiculous.
You have a friend on the Guardian who states that in London, English white people are in the minority. Two questions arise from this. Firstly, I suggest your friend’s arithmetic is symptomatic of declining educational standards, rather than anthropological shifts. Friends are like that. When I was at school, I had a friend who insisted that his dad was an astronaut. Another kid I knew swore that he’d been offered a trial at Manchester United. I, myself fervently believe that the reason I am not a millionaire is that every race I have ever bet on is fixed.
But hey, its been a nice day, the sun is shining, lets humour your arithmetically challenged friend. Lets assume he’s right and that white English people are in a minority in London. So what?
Let me say it again, while you’re still spluttering like Ian Paisley with a mouthful of porridge. I said so what. Does the world come to an end if there aren’t enough white people in London? And are the non-white, non-English people not human? Do they not have arms, legs and, with apologies to Shakespeare, if you prick them, do they not bleed? What is the problem? Unless you are suggesting that a non-white, non-English person is more likely to be a criminal or an undesirable neighbour, I see no problem whatsoever. Next.
It is not a fact that if you’re white and English you have no chance of getting into the Metropolitan Police Force. A fact is something you can demonstrate to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a fact that most racehorses have four legs, since we can see that this is demonstrably true. It is a fact that I am writing this in English. Please do not assert that something is a fact when it plainly isn’t. If you have evidence to support it, then lets see it. Otherwise, don’t call it a fact.
Your whine continues. "What do you suggest I do about this problem of mine?" I am still non the wiser about what your problem is. It seems there are some non-white non-English people in London, some of whom are becoming policemen and some of whom are being encouraged to become taxi drivers. Which part of that is the problem? Are there hordes of black policemen regularly stopping you in the street? Do black taxi drivers get lost more often than white ones?
Moving on, you intend to move to a bit of old-fashioned Blighty? If by that you mean, to a part of Britain where there are only white, English people and everyone votes Conservative, I suggest that you might need a Tardis rather than the West Coast mainline. I believe the sixteenth century is particularly clement at this time of year.
Now, lets talk about schools. I thought for one glorious moment that you were going to stumble across a point upon which we might agree, as though we were both sensible adults. You referred to plans for a Hindu only school. I believe that single-faith schools should not be allowed. They are divisive and they go against our tradition of secular schooling. But alas, you don’t have a problem with a Hindu school. ‘Fair enough’ you say. Your main objection is that the Hindu school is not for ‘locals’. Setting aside your Royston Vasey moment, this comment puzzled me. Are the Hindu schoolchildren not locals? Or are they commuting from Bombay?
It is comments like these that will lead people to the conclusion that you hold racist beliefs, that it is racism at the core of your argument. You automatically consider Hindu children not to be ‘locals’, despite the fact that in all probability they were born and bred in the area. As far as I am concerned there are no degrees of ‘local’. If you are born in England, you are English. Period.
I have no idea why the gentleman to whom you refer turned down planning permission for the other school. Get hold of the planning documents, paste them up on here and lets have a look, lets try and get to the bottom of it. But then, looking beyond the surface is too difficult, isn’t it. Far better to add it to the rather smelly little rag bag of minor grievances you are attempting to pass off as an argument. One school was approved, another was not. Show me evidence that this was due to racism, that is was some sort of ‘anti-white’ plot and I might take it seriously.
But of course, there is no evidence. As usual, the arguments melt away under scrutiny.
I apologise if I have been a little flippant here, but I’m afraid the hysterical tone of your posting and the complete lack of substance to your argument compelled me to reply immediately.
Aranalde
Razeen
We may be getting into semantics here, but my view, and it is a personal one, is that multi-culturalism means allowing people to celebrate what they may see as their ‘culture’, but within the framework of Britain. I believe that, as time goes on, inter-marriage occurs, the distinctions between cultures become blurred and the immigrant community is assimilated into the indigenous community, as has happened over the centuries.
I define multi-culturalism as essentially benign, allowing people time and space to express their cultural identity, rather than attempting to insist that everyone immediately adopt all the habits and customs of the white English population, immediately upon arrival, which I imagine would have the opposite effect.
That said, there have to be limits. For example, cultural practices which infringe British law should not be allowed. I think in this regard, the Blair government is giving a bad name to multi-culturalism by not being clearer on such issues as halal slaughter and forced marriages.
But an interesting debate, and one I am enjoying having, since most people on this forum seem refreshingly intelligent and prepared to debate.
Aranalde
So Aranalde .. do you think that Greenspan, arguably the most powerful man in in the world, is talking out of his hole about immigration and economics?
Dave
Not at all. He was talking about his opinion on one of the important aspects of immigration, namely, how it affects the economy. What he said was interesting. But you were saying that it supported your statement that all immigration everywhere is all about economic growth and that governments can stop or start immigration as they see fit. I don’t think his quote supports that.
Immigration affects the economy. That is obvious. But you are attempting to go one step further and assert that all immigration is started by governments who are working to an agenda of unlimited economic growth. Greenspan was talking about the effects of immigration. His quote did not support the assertion that immigration is started by governments.
As I have already said, immigration starts with people travelling from one country to another in search of a better life, a better job, or fleeing persecution. It starts with people, not governments. It is ‘about’ people. Governments can control it or not control it. They can’t stop it.
When governments are deciding how to administrate the immigration system, they have to take into account many different factors, besides the economic.
I think in essence we have two opposite positions. I believe that immigration starts with people and governments have to decide how to deal with it. Economic considerations are part of that decision. You believe that governments start immigration in order to pursue an economic agenda and that, presumably, if there was no such agenda, there would be no immigration. I disagree with you, and I don’t think the quote from Greenspan carries the weight of your assertion.
But it is an interesting idea and I would welcome the chance to debate it further with you, even if we may ultimately have to agree to disagree on this.
Aranalde.
Your post seems to have only one purpose…..
Thats to belittle me.
Everything I have said, is what I have heard from people in the know.
Its the truth. I may be to outspoken for the likes of you, but I am not a liar!
I put this to you!
Come to Harrow any time next week, I will tour you around my once beloved town from which my family have lived for 3 generations, but most have since moved on because of the plain and simple reasons that I have posted.
I will take great honour in taking you up to our planning control department and will sit you down with any of the planning control officers, ( Mr Macalister is good), who will show you the drawings for the "approved" temple that looks like it came straight out of Delhi high street, (totally not within keeping with any architecture in the area. But they still get permission).
Its just one example of many things that are pushed in your face every day by the now majority.
You have to see it to believe it. Its oppressive. Its one rule for one and no rules for us! (Us being the people who have lived here all our lives).
Why, did the Irish and Jamaicans who came over in their droves during the 50’s to re-build London and Londons transport service after the war, not mind being called "Paddy or wog or coon". It was okay then but why not now.
I’ll tell you why.
Its because of people like you.
Call me a tosser, milk, fat b*****d
, white honkey, anything you like, it dont bother me. Why does it bother the ethnics. My wife got called a white bitch, there is nobody she can complain to that will do anything about. Call a spade a spade and the SPG come knocking on your door.I talked today to the owner of my local paki shop, Mr Mohamed. Its okay to call it a Paki shop because he calls it that himself. Even he has seen a major change to the way of life in Harrow, and guess what "he" blames it on?
OHHH Yes…… Too many foreigners!
As I have said before Aranalde. If you can let go of that tree your hugging, bring you and your family to Harrow for the weekend or any time you can, I will find you accommadation, take you to the "high risk" areas, show you our newly founded "no go zone" and
As for the rest of your post……..
Whatever!!!!!!!!!!!
<br> P.S. """"""""""""""""""""""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. habits die hard.
Good post LM .. personal experience and knowledge are always prefered to statements made by people looking on from a distance.
I would also like Aranalde to explain you can reach ‘steady state economy’ as laid out by Allan Greenspan without an endless and continuous supply of cheap unskilled labour. We could prehaps cobble together some sort of policy for him and post it off.
my lips are sealed (been there, done that, still have the brickdust engrained in my forehead), apart from the thing about the Met.
although trying to particularly encourage applications from those who are not white british males, the vast majority of probationers emerging from training school are still exactly that.
personal knowledge? can’t beat it!
Good post Grasshopper.
Informed and intelligent argument is always preferable to blind prejudice and conspiracy theories.
Dave, for about the fourteenth time, the quote you used does not, repeat does not demonstrate that governments can start and stop immigration. It was a leading economic figure discussing the effects of immigration on the economy. We have now spent around a dozen or so posts going over the same ground. You have put forward a theory about immigration, which, to my mind, you have not proven. I asked you in a previous post how exactly a government can start and stop immigration. You have not answered. The quote you keep using does not support the weight of your argument. If you can’t see that, then we really aren’t going to get very far with this debate.
Lolly’s Mate
You aren’t too outspoken for me at all. One of the comforting myths that loudmouth racists like to cling to is that they are brave and maverick loners, speaking out courageously. When in fact, they are loudmouth racists.
Grasshopper has already dealt rather eloquently with your nonsense about racially abusive names. It wasn’t okay then and it isn’t okay now. Maybe immigrants in the 1950s felt they had to put up with insulting and racist comments everywhere they went. Now they don’t. An improvement, I would say. Or are you campaigning for the right to be racially abusive and insulting whenever you feel like it?
So the Hindu temple that is being built in your area looks like a Hindu temple. Well who’d have thought. You’d think they’d have the decency to disguise it as a block of flats, or maybe a branch of Tesco. I find it laughable that you are complaining that the temple will not be ‘in keeping’ with the architecture of the area. Gaudy supermarkets and intrusive billboards go up every day in this country, whilst run-down, condemned factories and terraces epitomise many parts of our inner cities. If the temple is well-built and well-designed, it will surely only add to the local architecture. Where I live there are mosques and temples that are some of the nicest, cleanest buildings in the area, surrounded by dingy abandoned tower blocks and defunct warehouses.
In the next sentence, you excell yourself. You state that the building of a Hindu Temple is oppressive and another example of one rule for some and no rules for ‘people who have lived here all our lives’. You don’t seem to have grasped this point, Lolly’s Mate, but the schoolchildren who will go to the Hindu school and the Hindus who will go to the temple are local. They were born in England. They are English. Yet you continue to portray them as outsiders, as ‘them’ rather than ‘us’. Now, you tell me, is this racist? Because I can think of no other reason why a Hindu child born in your area is not local, whereas you are.
Finally, and perhaps most bafflingly, having already brought up the thorny question of roses, you decide to talk about trees. Though there are many fine trees in our area (all of them born and bred here, I might add) I must confess I have never really found them attractive in that sense. Please explain your baffling reference to the hugging of trees.
For a start the government could do more of this
and refuse any work permits to people wanting to come and work here. That would more or less stop immigration.
GH, at least LM has got an opinion. I haven’t shared his experiences, in this country, but respect his views. I must say in LM’s defense that the chinese takeaway at the end of our street is known as ‘The Chinky’ .. in fact, that’s what they’ve called it. I nip in and remind them to be offended. I’m suprised at you getting offended on someone else’s behalf actually .. the Scottish Executive employ an army of people to do that full time.
Aranalde, a debate usually is a two sided thing .. where both participants put forward a point of view and back it up with some sort of evidence or rationale to support their view. You seem to think that you just saying ‘Nope’ is some sort of reasoned arguement. What you don’t seem to grasp is that I don’t have to prove anything, it’s up to you to disprove what I, Allan Greenspan, and a few other Economists have stated. If you can’t and just want to continually say ‘Nope’ then your right it’s not a debate .. well it is, it’s like the one I have with my ten year old daughter every day .. <br>:biggrin:
Dave
I’m afraid you have misunderstood. You asserted, out of nowhere, that immigration is all about the economy. This is potentially interesting. But, to date, you have produced no evidence. Alan Greenspan does not say in the quote you have used that immigration is all about the economy. You now state that ‘a few other economists’ agree with you. Well thats interesting. Lets see who they are.
Now, the subject of border controls. I agree, border controls are one of the ways in which a government can regulate and seek to control immigration. But you previously went further than that. You stated that governments can start and stop immigration. Border controls can help to limit immigration, but they can’t stop it. Immigrants arrive here for many reasons, some of them are asylum seekers, refugees, families of UK residents, EU citizens, businessmen, illegal travellers. Use of work permits will certainly have an impact. But it won’t stop immigration altogether.
And I’m afraid I don’t agree that having an opinion is somehow worthy of merit. Every concious being on the planet has at least one opinion, of some sort.
The fact that the people in your Chinese restaurant don’t get offended by such names does not justify you in using them when referring to all Chinese people. Many people learn to laugh off such insults to avoid trouble, or to try and fit in. I have direct personal experience of this in my family. If you happen to know for a fact that one individual doesn’t mind such insults, then that’s fair enough, although I still don’t understand why you would want to use them. But you can’t then take that circumstance and broaden it to include all Chinese people. And for one thing, I was brought up to believe that it was simple good manners not to go out of your way to insult people.
However, you may have a point when you mention your ten year old daughter. My daughter is not two yet, so the conversations I have with her fall some way short of the Oxford Union level of debate. Perhaps it is starting to affect my brain!
<br>:biggrin:
Number One .. Tsuyoshi Yamada .. page 5, Wage Growth Pressure.
The age old argument which has been seen many times on TRF<br>Ive forced myself to read zzzzzz every word that Arunalde has written zzzzzz and although his.her points can be valid with the perspective of his her eyes ..its as boring as boring can be .<br>I cant help it but it reminds me of the posts that Davies used to make …has he gone on a mission …havnt seen him post for a bit …mmmmm<br>Be snappy and quick like razzie <br>sometimes less is more <br>Those of such liberal veiws ,are they in their lives as fair as they make out ..I doubt it <br>You really do not need to write an essay in reply to this post Arunalde<br>Youve wasted enough of my time tonight as it is
Whoops … sorry Davies <br>Not meaning any offence , infact it was a compliment<br>But my mistake<br>You are quite correct ,<br>You cannot be Aranalde <br>He she is too smart to be you
Just say NO to going out
Wow not often Sky is without words <br>But that tops the lot
Lets not all go out and live in a cyber world .. horrahhh<br>Ive got a good idea …lets go to work and when we get home sit on our computers …. Hurrrahhhhh
Lets start a new campain …<br>Just say No to going out<br>Bob Geldolf..Sting ..Elton John ..oh it would be a party in the park ..if anybody went out<br> Whotta an ass
Dave
With apologies to Grasshopper (and indeed everyone else) I must once again point out that the information you are using does not support the argument you are putting forward.
You stated and continue to state that governments can stop or start immigration and that there are no other aspects of immigration, other than the economic. In order to support that theory, you would need to produce evidence.
The article you used is interesting enough. It talks about the economic effects of immigration. I would readily accept that immigration affects the economy, amongst other things. But nowhere in the article does it state that that governments can stop or start immigration. Nowhere does it state that immigration is all about the economy.
And I would like to point out that this discussion we are having, tedious though it is becoming, is not a debate at the Oxford Union. We have not agreed to debate a proposition. You have put forward a theory. I thought it was interesting but asked to see the evidence. To date there has been no evidence to support your theory. It is not up to me to prove that it is wrong.
Or to put it another way. Lets say you came onto this forum and stated that last night you had been abducted by aliens. I might say that was interesting, but can you prove it? I don’t have to prove it, you reply, its up to everyone else to prove that it didn’t happen. You then refer to an episode of the X-files to prove your point.
Finally, I think perhaps, given that people on this forum are beginning to tire of the discussion, we should continue our argument on the economic effects of immigration by email or perhaps carrier pigeon.
Though Sky writes like a baboon with a broken typewriter, he has pointed out that some of my posts on this forum have been, not to put too fine a point on it, taking all things into consideration, without wishing to beat about the bush, at the end of the day, a little on the lengthy side.
Fair point, I think.
As a newcomer here, I am concious that I am not quite used to the prevailing etiquette and, if short and pithy is the preferred style, I will endeavour to comply. (Starting with my next post, obviously).
Your a wind up aranalde
You dont answer the questions that I put to you.
You have called me a liar.
You have said that I am not a minority.
You have asked me for proof.
I want to give it to you.
harrowtimes.co.uk
harrow.gov.co.uk
If you want the phone number of my uncle who served 30 odd years in the Met and was told his son cannot get the same job as his father because he’s white and will have to wait untill the ethnics take over, PM me.
I have the phone numbers of 3 "qualified" London black taxi drivers who will give you the same answer that you doubt so much.
Mr Curtain who is the headmaster of my sons school is willing to talk to you if you want some "facts" about the lack of control he has over the said Somalians who kicked my wife.
The phone number for Harrow Planning Control is 02085611. Ask for the Navster. He wont want to speak to you unless you speak in broken English.
The temple is just off Kenton Road. Its right next to a row of 3 bed semi’s.  Not a Tesco in sight nor a factory.
My friend, who I see every morning to pick up my papers, Yes, The paki shop owner, Mr Mohamed, would love to show you around his town, Harrow. He has as strong opinions about this subject as I have. Funny that, dont you think???? He is willing to talk to you.
My local pharmasist, Mr Bakdah, he wants to back me up. I have done work for him and his late English wife, for 12 years or more. Mary, his wife, who was one of the nicest people you could meet, once said to my wife that "she gets so much more being a Bakdah". TRUTH.
You asked me for proof. I am not able to show you any proof by way of this Interweb thing, because I dont know how. The only way I can prove it is by you taking me up on my offer.
You seem affraid to want to come to Harrow to see it for yourself. So what else can I do?<br>
(Edited by lollys mate at 7:04 am on June 16, 2005)
Aranalde .. have you actually bothered your arse to read any of the links .. what do you think to what Tsuyoshi Yamada said ? I’m not going to post up any more information about this because there’s no point .. it’s there for others to read and take out of it what they want for themselves.
GH it is really boring, granted. Understanding the reasons that things happen in the world tend to be like that .. <br>:o
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.