..........

That Boris Johnson is a real rogue isn't he? Get's away with it because he has floppy hair.

We do need to turn our attention to those on all sides that spout hateful and divisive lies about 'others' in this country. We need a little love.

The voice of reason indeed.

It is possible to prefix Britain with 'Great' again without being prejudiced,

Good old Boris!:clap:

I've liked Boris for years.

I've always wondered why I liked someone who appeared to be such an amiable buffoon.

I now know WHY I like the guy.

He's hit the nail on the head.

He's in a postion where he can such things and people might listen; some will say 'Oh it's only Boris, the flop haired cyclist'. Others will just disagree with him because he's taking pot shots at some of the sacred cows of political correctness. But I'm pleased he said it; I agree wholeheartedly with him and hope we can start restoring a pride in being British that is a pride without bigotry, without hate and without violence.

Joe

Well, its the perfect opportunity to get his pompous arse back into politics isn't it....

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Well, its the perfect opportunity to get his pompous arse back into politics isn't it....

Well, try and judge the words and not the person. There's been a bit too much of that around here in the last week from all parts of the political spectrum.

Joe

I agree with every word.

It's about time Britain was classed as 'Great' again

I'm off to dig out my Union Jack and drape it from the window.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Well, try and judge the words and not the person. There's been a bit too much of that around here in the last week from all parts of the political spectrum.

Joe

I hear what you are saying Joe, but its the very politics that guys like him have been party to in the past that has trampled over 'Britishness', and hence lead to parties like the BNP coming in to seek political gain. Maybe he should have opened his trap earlier.

Britishness has never been a racist issue, just in the minds of the few. The word has been hijacked by the far right as much as Islam has been hijacked by the terrorists.

When you say 'opened his trap earlier' are you talking about his history in the Tory party or speaking up sooner after the bombings?

If the former - yes, I would agree - there are a lot of people in Parliament on ALL sides of the house who should have spoken up about such issues before now.

If the latter, then people would no doubt have blamed Johnson for jumping on the bandwagon along with the BNP and George Galloway.

Who should have said what over the last few years is now not the problem; that has the sterility of the debates that used to take place in left wing political circles during the Thatcher years; lots of very earnest people debating what Lenin said to Trotsky at the 23rd International and advising the Nicaraguans how to run their revolution whilst steel works and pits were closing down.

It's what we do next that matters.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
When you say 'opened his trap earlier' are you talking about his history in the Tory party or speaking up sooner after the bombings?

If the former - yes, I would agree - there are a lot of people in Parliament on ALL sides of the house who should have spoken up about such issues before now.

If the latter, then people would no doubt have blamed Johnson for jumping on the bandwagon along with the BNP and George Galloway.

Who should have said what over the last few years is now not the problem; that has the sterility of the debates that used to take place in left wing political circles during the Thatcher years; lots of very earnest people debating what Lenin said to Trotsky at the 23rd International and advising the Nicaraguans how to run their revolution whilst steel works and pits were closing down.

It's what we do next that matters.

Joe

Hi Joe

I meant when he had more influence in the Tory party. It just seems like he is bandwagoning now, and increases the notion that politicians stay shut when to protect their positions, but feel its okay to talk when they have been relieved of their posts.

Well said, Boris - I agree with every word. Now stand for leadership.

I think Winston Churchill would have been proud of him and I agree with what he says.

Originally posted by t020
Well said, Boris - I agree with every word. Now stand for leadership.

I second that!

Originally posted by spook

They went to British primary schools and learnt about Britain from British teachers


Discuss.[/B] [/B]

Quote:

"There needs to be an examination of how we deal with the atmosphere and conditions that lead to educated middle class young men and disenfranchised, disillusioned young men doing these things.

One place we know all these people went to is not youth clubs or mosques or madrases. They all went to our schools from four to 16. So why aren't our schools giving positive role models or teaching them about the history of Islamic mathematicians and artists? Why are their role models the mujahideen in Afganistan? The loss of identity does not happen when you are 16, but over a periods of years."

Sadiq Khan MP. The Guardian 14 July 2005.

Whilst Boris Johnson makes some interesting points I find it hard to take him and his argument seriously, partly because he is a dishonest and incompetent fool but mainly because for many years he has been firstly a leading supporter of and then a representative of a political party which has presided over what he might call the de-Britannification of Britain and what I call the Americanisation of Britain. For years people on the political right have loved to talk about how British life has been changed by non-white immigration, European integration, political correctness and mulitculturalism but the influence of these changes is insignificant compared to the changes resulting from conscious decisions to copy America or unquestioning acceptance of demands made by rich and powerful Americans.

Boris Johnson argued that "we seem to have pulled off the rare feat of breeding suicide bombers determined to attack the very society that incubated them" and asked "Why does America import its suicide bombers, while we produce our own?". However, leaving aside the stupidity of making an argument about importing suicide bombers given that there have only been two such suicide attacks in the West (on September 11th 2001 and 7th July 2005) did suicide bombers attack Britain because they despise British society or because the British government has wholeheartedly supported the American government in waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars that have resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Muslims and the discovery of no weapons of mass destruction, never mind ones that could be launched within 45 minutes?

If Boris Johnson wants to start a campaign to encourage people to put up more British flags or spend more time teaching children British history he can do that and I'm sure many people will support him. A man of Boris Johnson's supposed intelligence ought to be well aware that the famous British writer claimed that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". However, even if Boris Johnson's campaign takes off it will make no significant difference, especially to a would-be suicide bomber who sees Britain as the leading supporter of a new American-led crusade against those Muslim countries which happen to play a significant role in the oil market.

At last someone's written something that I can agree with, I'm proud to be British and we have a lovely multicultural nation that I'm proud to be part of.


(I do like Boris' wit though, I think he can be remarkably witty at the drop of a hat :thumbsup:)

I've been reading the Spectator for years now and although I don't agree with everything that Boris Johnstone says , he usually talks refreshing common sense.
I'd recommend the Spectator to anyone . There are many other excellent writers and they are by no means all Right -of-Centre.
If you are getting concerned in any degree about which way Britain is heading , read the Spectator and it'll clarify your thoughts , if they need clarifying and probably cheer you up. You'll see you're not the only one who thinks this country is going to hell in a handcart.
I don't have any shares in the Spectator by the way and I'm not Boris's grandad or anything-------I just like the mag. and like B.J. most of the time ! [shouldn't have gone grovelling to Liverpool , though , Boris ! ]

So Fingers, it was the Tories' allegiance to the U.S. of A. that led to our copying everthing American?

Er, may I mention that poodle Tony Blair who is slavishly at George Bush's beck and call, '24/7' - (that last terminology is an Amercanism, right?).

Rubbish.

Boris Johnson writes a highly intelligent column in The Telegraph every Thursday and he doesn't shun issues that the left-of-centre press would deem racist, xenophobic and even homophobic. His words will be appreciated by a large proportion of the population.

Unfortunately, this country is now over-run with too many thought-police and politically (in) correct do good merchants and the sad fact is the machine supplying this chain is headed by New Labour.

The same New Labour who, when beckoned by Mr G. Bush, merrily went to war with Iraq....,

Another avid Spectator reader here, waiting for his morning copy to arrive so I can read it over breakfast.

The magazine is by no means a mouthpiece for conservative thought ,but offers a refreshing antidote to much of what passes for liberal consenus in the rest of our media.

Get around Boris' appearance and personality and concentrate on what he says, there is often a great deal for "ordinary" people to agree with.

Add another to the list of supporters of what is written in this article.

Well-said Boris.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by GHS1961
Get around Boris' appearance and personality and concentrate on what he says, there is often a great deal for "ordinary" people to agree with.

If Boris sharpened himself up and stopped playing the amiable buffoon, the Tories would find they had an obvious leadership candidate who might get them somewhere.

I'll bet Tony Blair/Gordon Brown are sweating over that potentiality as we speak.

StarSparkle

It is interesting that Boris refers to the 'many beauties and attractions' of the so-called 'multicultural society' we are constantly told we are part of, without giving examples. One suspects that this is because he would be hard pressed to think of any. Johnson, like myself, is a traditional, Burkean, 'reluctant collectivist' Tory with a deep pessimism about human nature per se, beneath the genial front, and a deep mistrust of idealism and utopian panaceas. Many is the time he has pointed out in the pages of the Spectator and Telegraph, that the deficits of 'multiculturalism' outweigh the strengths. Please do not misinterpret his rallying call to all 'moderates' as a championing of 'multiculturalism'. It is plainly nothing of the sort.

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of his argument, especially his suggestion that 'moderate' imams should do more to counter radical Islamic extremism, and help to integrate the Muslim community within a secular, liberal democratic, capitalist country, I disagree with Boris profoundly on one point. The suicide-bombers were not 'ordinary' or 'typical' Yorkshiremen. The average Yorkshireman is white, of largely Anglo Saxon-Celtic origin, and nominally Christian [at least christened]. Indeed, census figures tell us that Britain as a whole is, in ethnic terms, roughly 96% 'white'. The murderous young men , one suspects, never for one moment felt that they really 'belonged' in Yorkshire, and the wider community of British subjects. If they were 'ordinary' and 'typical', can someone please explain to me why they murdered people of all ethnic and religious groups, including their own, on that terrible morning? The truth is that the Muslim community, on the whole, has not integrated as successfully as other groups such as the Hindu community. Part of the fault lies with the community itself, and Muslims must do a great deal more to convince the wider population of their loyalty.

Maybe this may sound unfair to the majority of Muslims, who live peaceful, law-abiding lives and bear no enmity towards their neighbours. However, circumstances demand that they demonstrate an aversion towards extremism, in the spirit of communal cohesion. Boris is right, the imams could do more, but so could the wider Muslim community. There is no reason on earth why any law-abiding, typical Muslim should 'take a low profile'. Muslims do not have to hide away, as was allegedly recommended by certain imams. The community must, however, think long and hard about whether it is doing enough to integrate successfully, and whether it has convinced the majority population of its loyalty. This really is 'crisis time'...

I do agree with some of what Boris says, (I never thought I'd say that!) however this:

"That means insisting, in a way that is cheery and polite, on certain values that we identify as British. If that means the end of spouting hate in mosques, and treating women as second-class citizens, then so be it. We need to acculturate the second-generation Muslim communities to our way of life, and end the obvious alienation that they feel. "

Must also, to my mind, be qualified by saying - if the muslim communities do all they can to confront the radicals amongst them - to drive the likes of abu hamza of their streets, then white communities must also do all we can to stop hate being 'spouted' in the daily tabloid press ( a serious challenge, to my mind) and by our own radical political parties.

We must also turn our minds to the 'second class' citizen treatment of women in our own society - publications such as the daily sport (which SHOULD be on the top shelf, if not closed, permanently) and in our vast, expansive sex industry. Let he without sin and all that.

Timo -

I do not wish to clash antlers with you for a second day running :) I'm sure we both have work to be doing!

However - how would you suggest that "the majority of Muslims, who live peaceful, law-abiding lives and bear no enmity towards their neighbours" "demonstrate an aversion towards extremism"? In the days following the bombing I have seen many many quotes in newspapers and online by muslim brits who over and over again say 'these people have nothing to do with us, we abhor what they have done, this is not islam, do not judge us by this, we love this country and would die for it' Short of signs and t-shirts saying I hate suicide bombers, what more would you like them to do?

I feel that the imams do not have control over this younger generation of muslims. They take their lead from the internet, I believe, and their peers. They feel less loyalty to country and community, which I believe is not a trait lacking in 'our own' youth, who rape, kill, torture, and maim, often for drugs, money, or just for kicks. The difference is that they do not conduct their reign of terror in such a high profile way.

Kathythebean,
I admire your sentiments, and realise that your intentions are the same as mine- to contribute ideas that might bring about a more tolerant and relaxed situation. However, when you refer to the white community [I shall not 'split hairs' here, as most Muslims in Britain are not 'white'] and its duty to stem tabloid hatred, moral panics etc, and to tackle 'our own radical political parties', I am puzzled. Your posting suggests that the press and certain political parties 'belong' to the white community. You use the term 'ours'. Does this refer to the white community, as I suspect ? If so, you are certainly acknowledging the very real divisions between ethnic groups in our so-called 'multicultural' society.

Secondly, re the 'second class treatment of women';you advocate the removal of 'The Sport' to the 'top shelf'. Is this to appease Muslim feelings, or to combat what you perceive as sexist pornography in general? I do not like the nasty, grubby rag either, but I would not want to see it 'closed permanently'. There is a good, libertarian argument for keeping it open, in a society that is regarded as 'free' and democratic, despite the offence the rag causes.

Muslim women , both the ones who live in this country and the ones who live in their own country are nearly always under a terrific lot of pressure to behave in certain ways. I don't think it's a good idea and personally , I would imagine their lives must be boring.
I suppose the most extreme case is the position of Saudi women. Yet , I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that in a survey carried out amongst muslim women in this country and Saudi Arabia that the majority didn't regard themselves as , "second class" citizens and in fact wielded a lot of power , "behind the scenes ". The subservience they had to show to their husbands......etc......was for public consumption only. How true this is , I don't know-----I suppose it depends under what conditions the survey was taken !
The position of Western women in the sex industry is quite different in my opinion. No doubt some are physically forced but does someone force the majority ? Is there a mass sex-slave industry operating in Britain and been operating for about 30 years ! No doubt some will suggest that economic hardship , "forces " women to become sex objects but then the question arises , " How do the other women manage , who just have ordinary jobs ? "
After all we're supposed to have full employment in Britain . No-one frog-marches young women to the Sun offices to be photographed ......or do they ?

All I mean, dearest, is that at times like this no-one should say what others should do without looking at what they consider to be their society and their community and recognising that extremism and hatred must be combatted everywhere.

I know what you mean about my 'us' and 'them' speak - it is impossible to navigate your way round the vocabulary of times like these! I do not wish to insinuate that white communities are responsible for the tabloid press or the BNP, merely that secular folk arguably have the best weapons and arguements to deal with them in the current climate.

Re: the Sport - really, have you read it! :D I would advocate moving it to the top shelf for the same reason that porn mags are on the top shelf, to stop children picking them up and to clearly mark to retailers that they should not be sold to under 18s!

However, thats besides the point I was trying to make which was that its fallacy for dear old Boris to pretend that the muslim community has a monopoly on the degradation and exploitation of vulnerable women in the modern age.

Fareast, I appreciate your point, but the British sex industry is built on the backs of failed asylum seekers and east european women who have been brought here by people traffickers. I can PM you some stuff to read about if you like. "Is there a mass sex-slave industry operating in Britain and been operating for about 30 years !" Urm, yes.

Just wondering how "re-Brittanification" (incidentally, I've seen some horrid neologisms recently, but this one takes the biscuit) will help address the grievances that lie behind the London attacks?

Will Muslims singing 'Rule Brittania', eating strawberries and cream at Wimbledon and going down the boozer on a Sunday afternoon bring back the 100,000+ that have died so far during the Iraq crusade?

Many Muslims feel humiliated and angry that they are used as pawns in a western imperialist game, so those who feel strongly about these issues are hardly likely to adopt the norms of what they consider to be their oppressors. The only way these evil attacks can be prevented is by addressing the legitimate concerns that lead some young men down the treacherous path to terror.

Fareast,
It is doubtful whether any of the pouting, full-breasted 'luvlies' are force-marched to the offices of The Sun. However, away from what most see as 'glamour' [though certain feminist scholars might dissent from that view, such as Dworkin] photography, there is an industry where women are trafficked, forced into prostitution, sexual slavery and pornography. It is global, with the involvement of wealthy individuals, organised gangs etc. There exist 'snuff' films portraying the gang rape, torture and murder of women, and there are networks of sexual sadists that pass women from pillar to post. One suspects that the Wests and their alleged contacts [who have never been brought to justice, despite cryptic references to 'gangs in Bristol'] are the tip of a global phenomenon. Look at the Octopus-like Belgian paedophile network that came to light recently. This is a terrifying world, Far East, and make no mistake about it!

timo
Well , I have to say I completely disagree with you there.
I know that there are women and girls -----and boys and men------who are forced into sex-slavery. I wonder what the numbers are ?
Also , I wonder how many thousands of models are involved in all the numerous magazines and porno films that are produced and made.
To me , the figures don't seem to add up.
How is it so many girls give up the , "game " or , "modelling". They're always interviewing some ex- "victim" and it usually turns out she's done it to support a drug habit or a boy-friend 's drug addict....or to put a son into private school. Are all these people , really controlled by evil gangs ?
The East European Mafia have only been operating properly in this country for about 10-15 years------ "modelling" and prostitution have been around since the year dot. I know there have always been vicious gangs who've exploited women and girls-----the Messina brothers spring to mind ------but I feel sure that the vast majority of the girls who pose for magazines , take part in porno films , work the streets or work in brothels or work in the , "massage' parlours do it for the money and not by force
It would be interesting to get the figures of those convicted of trafficking in women for sex and poncing off them and the number of women . in total ,in the sex industry. Even then , it would be difficult to prove anything much as one could always say, " Ah yes but she was too scared to say she had been forced " !

Fair enough, Fareast, most women enter the 'sex industry' by choice. I take your well-argued points. However, there is still a global 'sex-trafficking' trade. It has little to do with the Sport and top-shelf soft porn, and does involve organised gangs. I understand your scepticism in some cases, and I agree it is hard not to become cynical re the examples you cite [funding boyfriend's drug habit etc]. Also, I acknowledge that there are wealthy female 'porn celebrities' out there, that qualify as industries in themselves! I realise too, that there is nothing 'new' in coercion/force re the 'sex industry'. Sorry if I sounded a bit self-righteous.

Back to Boris...

Originally posted by Greenback
...Many Muslims feel humiliated and angry that they are used as pawns in a western imperialist game, so those who feel strongly about these issues are hardly likely to adopt the norms of what they consider to be their oppressors. The only way these evil attacks can be prevented is by addressing the legitimate concerns that lead some young men down the treacherous path to terror.
Whilst this may be the case, is it not the point that the wider Muslim community should do more to support the wider community (in general) by assisting to isolate and identify the (minority) of violent extremists.

Originally posted by Ousetunes
So Fingers, it was the Tories' allegiance to the U.S. of A. that led to our copying everthing American?

Er, may I mention that poodle Tony Blair who is slavishly at George Bush's beck and call, '24/7' - (that last terminology is an Amercanism, right?).

Rubbish.


The Americanisation of Britain gathered pace under Margaret Thatcher which followed economic policies primarily developed by American monetarist economists who also inspired the Reagan administration. The American economy was a model which Thatcher wanted to copy and as markets were deregulated British leaders followed American trends (such as building vast out-of-town malls or multiplex cinemas) or imported or copied American products and techniques (such as tabloid-style TV "news" services and the political techniques that have been developed to use such news services to their advantage). That process has continued under Tony Blair and other New Labour Atlanticists, some of whom are products of the British-American Project's plan to develop a "successor generation" of British politicians and other leaders who would continue to shape British policy in a manner that would be acceptable to their American counterparts.

I don't want to live in America or want Britain to become like America because I don't see the American way as a good example to follow. Over a generation the American influence on British society (and particularly its cultural influence) has become overwhelming largely thanks to shallow people who copy American role models, some of whom are very poor role models. Instead of kowtowing to America British politicians should stand up to America and instead of copying Americans British people should learn to think for themselves and question what they are told.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Whilst this may be the case, is it not the point that the wider Muslim community should do more to support the wider community (in general) by assisting to isolate and identify the (minority) of violent extremists.

Foo fighter, you may be right, but in the case of the bombers of london - not even their own mothers knew. It is hard to identify people who may do such things. As written in the guardian yesterday "if your nephew grows a beard and starts going to the mosque more often, should you alert the police?"!

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Whilst this may be the case, is it not the point that the wider Muslim community should do more to support the wider community (in general) by assisting to isolate and identify the (minority) of violent extremists.

The BBC yesterday (I think) showed an interview with 5 muslim lads aged 18), from ther area of Leeds the terrorists came from. The purpose was to ask why young Muslims might turn to extremism.

All the lads sid they were against terrorism and what had happened in London. However, they were all clearly angry about what is happening (at the hands of the US and UK forces) to fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They were asked if the anger they felt was typical in their community - they said yes.

They were asked if the anger they felt was sufficient for some people to turn to extremism - they all agreed.

The report went on to ask if there were people in the community trying to exploit these feelings by preaching extremist views - they said "yes, loads, everywhere". My question is this - if this is true then why aren't they reporting them?

Originally posted by StarSparkle
If Boris sharpened himself up and stopped playing the amiable buffoon, the Tories would find they had an obvious leadership candidate who might get them somewhere.

I'll bet Tony Blair/Gordon Brown are sweating over that potentiality as we speak.

StarSparkle

The only problem is that I think that he'd be just another faceless tory politician.

I see Boris as a politician who hasn't gone to the finishing school of Spin. He does make a fool of himself now and again, just like the rest of us. Normal politicians try so hard to be squeaky clean, whenever they make an indescretion they fall much higher.

Originally posted by kathythebean
...but in the case of the bombers of london - not even their own mothers knew...
Hey, there's plenty of things I've done that my mother doesn't know about (but let's not go there ;) ), but other people know about.

:D

Originally posted by Zamo
...The report went on to ask if there were people in the community trying to exploit these feelings by preaching extremist views - they said "yes, loads, everywhere". My question is this - if this is true then why aren't they reporting them?
Precisely, somewhere, someone will have had their suspicions...

...they just need to come forward more often, and for that, the community (that they live in) has to support the idea that they should come forward...

...hopefully we are now getting to that point.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Fingers

I don't want to live in America or want Britain to become like America because I don't see the American way as a good example to follow. Over a generation the American influence on British society (and particularly its cultural influence) has become overwhelming largely thanks to shallow people who copy American role models, some of whom are very poor role models. Instead of kowtowing to America British politicians should stand up to America and instead of copying Americans British people should learn to think for themselves and question what they are told.

It would be a start if we removed some of the junk on the television that comes our way from America.

Incidentally, you used the word atlanticist. Is that a real word? If not, it should be.

Originally posted by Ousetunes
Incidentally, you used the word atlanticist. Is that a real word? If not, it should be.

It is a real word. Here is a definition of it:

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

Here are some reports, articles and speeches in which it is used:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3697434.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/conferences_2001/liberal_democrats/1561586.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1405635,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,1399956,00.html

As you've probably guessed by now I'm not an Atlanticist.

Voice of Reason? Not really. I mean, he's a reasonable guy who clearly can't keep his flies shut, and his jolly bufoon act washed well on HIGNFY, but he does appear to write stuff like this off the top of his head for fun. And he's good at it. But it makes no pretence at reason whatsoever. Or at least there's no evidence of reasoning that I can see, but I'd be happy to comment on any highlighted examples, if they can be provided.

His article is full of platitudes and vague references to the nebulous aunt sally of 'liberal consensus'.

One of the bombers was a teaching assistant, not a teacher. C'mon Boris - you're going to end up in the next edition "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them"

Flags are patterned pieces of cloth, originally devised to stop your archers from slaughtering your footsoldiers.

The less history you have as a defined nation state, the more important they seem to be. Lots of people still fly the Confederate Flag in the USA, I understand - which is hardly ringing endorsement of one nation American Patriotism.

I think the problem with Great Britain (let's leave NI out of this then?) is that it, as a collective entity, has no idea how to act like a small island nation off the north coast of europe, and insteads sits on the UN security council, maintains an independent nuclear deterrent more or less invulnerable to attack, and is a dominant player on both the European and World diplomatic stage.

The problem lies not with any authority or state, but with grass roots nationalists who imbue flags with almost mystical properties of representation and intangible value. Flying a flag is done with intent. In Sweden people fly Swedish flags, decorate their trees with swedish flags, have swedish flag paper napkins, price tags, its an ubiquitous symbol - the intent is almost purely decorative. Until the British can master their flag as decoration and not as some holy relic, will we see the unselfconcious habit of flying the flag return.

However the George Cross has seen a real renaissance recently, and people are happily flying it for fun and football. As flags go it's much better looking than the splintered mess of the Union Jack. In fact I'd go one further and say the Union Jack is ugly. If I was able to choose a new Flag for the United Kingdom, I would go for one of those groovy royal standards - Lions & Unicorns - Fabulous.

The current union flag is an act of the highest political correctness with its egregious message of 'inclusivity' beamed out from mission control in London, England

Originally posted by redrobbo
Quote:

"There needs to be an examination of how we deal with the atmosphere and conditions that lead to educated middle class young men and disenfranchised, disillusioned young men doing these things.

One place we know all these people went to is not youth clubs or mosques or madrases. They all went to our schools from four to 16. So why aren't our schools giving positive role models or teaching them about the history of Islamic mathematicians and artists? Why are their role models the mujahideen in Afganistan? The loss of identity does not happen when you are 16, but over a periods of years."

Sadiq Khan MP. The Guardian 14 July 2005.

Bang on.

The British custom of 'going native' throughout the empire is being mirrored here. The only possible outcome is a fusion of cultures - Culture is fluid, a fluid even, and where cultures meet there is conflict and creativity - and a blending of cultures. This tells you, to stretch the fluid metaphor, that even very diverse cultures are rarely imiscible.

erm, anyway.

Tony Blair unwittingly articulated the problem:
10 Downing Street Web Site (http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page7858.asp)
...the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims... are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this act of terrorism every bit as much as we do.

I think Fingers' observations , re-America and Britain are just about spot on.
Neither the Tories nor New Labour seem to have made the slightest effort to stop the American , "culturalisation " of Britain.
However I don't think there was anything as intelligent as a sort of , "Master Plan" behind the process. "Cock -ups" and running round like headless chickens is what both the Tories and Labour governments have been guilty of , these past few decades. Please don't accuse them of long-term planning !
However , the move towards Americanisation was easy for both parties. A vast number of people in Britain slavishly follow America in terms of fashion , films , entertainment in general , speech patterns , architecture and spellings.
In my opinion , even more serious is that a lot of British educationalists have swallowed , hook , line and sinker , every crackpot idea about teaching that has emerged from the nuthouses of California. They vainly imagined that what would work with a well-behaved class of 10 motivated kids in Silicone Valley or somewhere , would work on a sink estate , with 30 kids in a class , in the U.K
You're perfectly right , then , Fingers in what you say.The governments , though were pushing at an open door.

Originally posted by Greenback

Many Muslims feel humiliated and angry that they are used as pawns in a western imperialist game, so those who feel strongly about these issues are hardly likely to adopt the norms of what they consider to be their oppressors. The only way these evil attacks can be prevented is by addressing the legitimate concerns that lead some young men down the treacherous path to terror.

Islam is only a religion. Why do 2nd generation Muslims (especially in the case of the terrorists) feel more closely connected to their fellow Muslims in countries they may not have even been to than to their fellow citizens that have lived alongside them all their lives? This is the issue I feel Boris is trying to address. There's no excuses, no apologetic sentiments - Iraq is largely irrelevant. The greater goal of turning each nation into an Islamic theocracy is what drives these people, and afterall, London "hosted" the largest anti-war demonstration ever seen.

Originally posted by t020
Islam is only a religion. Why do 2nd generation Muslims (especially in the case of the terrorists) feel more closely connected to their fellow Muslims in countries they may not have even been to than to their fellow citizens that have lived alongside them all their lives? This is the issue I feel Boris is trying to address. There's no excuses, no apologetic sentiments - Iraq is largely irrelevant. The greater goal of turning each nation into an Islamic theocracy is what drives these people, and afterall, London "hosted" the largest anti-war demonstration ever seen.

Do you think this is is a similar action to how many in the world stood 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US after 9/11? You could argue the same? Discuss.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Do you think this is is a similar action to how many in the world stood 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US after 9/11? You could argue the same? Discuss.

No - whilst most Westerners felt empathetic towards the Americans after 9/11, they did not do or think anything that would harm or betray their own country. On the other hand, it seems to be the case that Muslims who have lived here all their lives put their Muslim "brothers" thousands of miles away BEFORE their fellow citizens whom they have lived and worked with all their lives.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Do you think this is is a similar action to how many in the world stood 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US after 9/11? You could argue the same? Discuss.

I've just discussed this on another thread in 'general Sheffield chat' and voiced both my envy and concern at how Muslims look after each other as Brothers. It is something many of us could learn from but in a concerning way i feel that many of the muslim community keep quiet relating to the extremists who are looking to inflict chaos onto the UK/USA or other western country.

I've only just read the original post relating to Boris comments and agree with the majority of them. I want the Great back in Great Britian and want to feel British again. I for one felt proud when the masses ahd the English flag in their window or car window during the World Cup. Soon as it finished they came down. I kept mine up for a little longer but tired of the funny looks i got as though i was a saddo. Pity!

Originally posted by t020
Islam is only a religion. Why do 2nd generation Muslims (especially in the case of the terrorists) feel more closely connected to their fellow Muslims in countries they may not have even been to than to their fellow citizens that have lived alongside them all their lives? This is the issue I feel Boris is trying to address.


Well I doubt many Asian Muslims read the Spectator ;)

In spite of the fact that Burly and Beeston are 'mixed' communities of Asian Muslims and whites who may claim to be Christian the two sides do not generally communicate at any meanigful level or share very much in cultural terms. When I lived in Firth Park, children from the two communities didn't play out on the streets or in the park together, and it was common to here groups of third generation Asian children speaking to each other in their grandparent''s native language. But in any case most devout Muslims will admit their allegiance is firstly to Islam and secondly to their citizenship whichever country they're living in.



There's no excuses, no apologetic sentiments - Iraq is largely irrelevant. The greater goal of turning each nation into an Islamic theocracy is what drives these people, and afterall, London "hosted" the largest anti-war demonstration ever seen.

I can only suggest you try standing at the junction of Page Hall and Firth Park roadswith a clipboard and ask all the Asians, especially the young ones, you encounter to list the things that make them feel like strangers in a strange land. I think you'll find Iraq is very much on their minds.

The Islamic theocracy may well come about someday, but it will be our religious pursuit of hedonistic materialism and falling birthrate that allows that to happen.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Well I doubt many Asian Muslims read the Spectator ;)

In spite of the fact that Burly and Beeston are 'mixed' communities of Asian Muslims and whites who may claim to be Christian the two sides do not generally communicate at any meanigful level or share very much in cultural terms. When I lived in Firth Park, children from the two communities didn't play out on the streets or in the park together, and it was common to here groups of third generation Asian children speaking to each other in their grandparent''s native language. But in any case most devout Muslims will admit their allegiance is firstly to Islam and secondly to their citizenship whichever country they're living in.

This is what's so worrying though. It isn't multi-culturism so much as one immigrant culture imposing itself in another country with very little integration, resulting in segregation. Putting religion before country is equally worrying, especially in times like these.



Originally posted by Greybeard

I can only suggest you try standing at the junction of Page Hall and Firth Park roadswith a clipboard and ask all the Asians, especially the young ones, you encounter to list the things that make them feel like strangers in a strange land. I think you'll find Iraq is very much on their minds.

The Islamic theocracy may well come about someday, but it will be our religious pursuit of hedonistic materialism and falling birthrate that allows that to happen.

There are plenty of Christians, atheists, Jews, etc, that were also against the war in Iraq but they don't feel it alienates them. Why does the fact that most Iraqi people are Muslims make it so much more important to British Muslims who have never been to Iraq in their lives? Again it comes back to putting religion ahead of anything else. Imagine the outcome of WW2 if the British population had supported Hitler on the grounds that he happened to be of the same religion.

PS. I'll be emigrating to Australia before the UK and the rest of Europe becomes a Muslim theocracy, if it ever gets that far.

Originally posted by t020





There are plenty of Christians, atheists, Jews, etc, that were also against the war in Iraq but they don't feel it alienates them. Why does the fact that most Iraqi people are Muslims make it so much more important to British Muslims who have never been to Iraq in their lives?

I see where you are going with this, but I think if we decided to drop bombs on Israel and kill innocent people there and call it 'collateral damage', you might find members of the Jewish community would not be too pleased, and rightly so.

You could argue that most people in Britain have never been to Iraq, so why should they be bothered about bringing them 'democracy'?

I don't know whether I'm adding anything sensible or new here because I haven't time to check on all the posts :----but , having worked for a number of years in 3 Islamic countries , I have picked up a bit of knowledge , here and there.
The thing I was told over and over again by Islamic friends and aquaintances[ sp.?] is that Islam is not a religion in the accepted modern Christian meaning of the word. They said that the Islamic beliefs were part and parcel of their lives as a whole -----not on the fringes of it -----but a central part of it.
It was a very strong influence on the way a Muslim behaved in his /her public and private life.
Here in Britain , these days , Christianity 's influence has all but disappeared. Can anyone seriously suggest that people in Britain follow the Bible's teachings or the 10 commandants ?
This puts Muslims in a very complicated position if it's true what I've said. If you live in a country which is or has been at war with a country of your co-believers , where do your deep loyalties lie ?
I'm not , "having a go " at Muslim people , just pointing out how difficult their moral position is , if their Islamic faith is very strong and part of their lives.

Isn't it a little ironic that the largest waves of migration into Europe in the last few decades has been of Muslims into non-Muslim countries? At the last count, there were 56 Muslim countries in the world, but many Muslims seem to prefer to migrate to non-Muslim lands, particularly into affluent, liberal and tolerant Western countries.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Isn't it a little ironic that the largest waves of migration into Europe in the last few decades has been of Muslims into non-Muslim countries? At the last count, there were 56 Muslim countries in the world, but many Muslims seem to prefer to migrate to non-Muslim lands, particularly into affluent, liberal and tolerant Western countries.

Presumably it's our affluence, liberal politics and tolerance towards religion that were the attraction ? Even living on welfare the early immigrants will have found a far better standard of living than in their home country and the economic prospects for their children were much better.

What they seem to be unable to come to terms with is their intolerance of our generally secular society and comparatively amoral attitudes. These pose a very real threat to their long term cultural and religious cohesion so they choose to live in tightly controlled local communities and firmly resist integration.

Three generations on and to me they're now living more like colonists than immigrants.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Presumably it's our affluence, liberal politics and tolerance towards religion that were the attraction ? Even living on welfare the early immigrants will have found a far better standard of living than in their home country and the economic prospects for their children were much better.

What they seem to be unable to come to terms with is their intolerance of our generally secular society and comparatively amoral attitudes. These pose a very real threat to their long term cultural and religious cohesion so they choose to live in tightly controlled local communities and firmly resist integration.

Three generations on and to me they're now living more like colonists than immigrants.

Indeed. The assimilationist doctrines which provided the raison d'etre for mass immigration into the UK from 1948 onwards (with the passing of the British Nationality Act) have, three generations on, shown to be deeply flawed. The central idea was that, within a generation or two, the new migrants would become absorbed into the general population, whilst retaining elements of their indigenous cultures (cf. the Huguenots, Jews, Irish, Poles, Ukrainians etc). Assimilationist doctrines might have worked better if they had been buttressed with a sensible, coherent and pro-active policy. Instead, we had virtually a complete absence of a coherent policy. Instead we had a lot of wishful thinking, a culture of denial and much political expediency (particularly when the parties realised that there were votes in appealing to the 'grievances' of the new migrants). The void has been filled with the ritual incantation of the mantras of 'multiculturalism', which are in practice proving to be deeply divisive and dangerous to social and national cohesion.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
I see where you are going with this, but I think if we decided to drop bombs on Israel and kill innocent people there and call it 'collateral damage', you might find members of the Jewish community would not be too pleased, and rightly so.

Well, Israel isn't run by a bent, evil dictator, but if it was I'd like to think that the members of the (much better integrated) Jewish community would not blow up innocent UK civilians.


Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW

You could argue that most people in Britain have never been to Iraq, so why should they be bothered about bringing them 'democracy'?

A lot weren't bothered - a lot were against the war in Iraq.

It does seem apparent that most Muslims put their religion first and foremost and as such, problems and divisions are inevitable. That's why the article by Boris makes so much sense - Muslims need to start identifying themselves as British first and foremost, and quite a large proportion (not all, maybe not even most) need to start integrating into the society that they/their parents/grandparents *chose* to immigrate to.

Originally posted by t020
Well, Israel isn't run by a bent, evil dictator, but if it was ...
Well, I'm not going to say that it is, but you can make up you r own mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

As for the dictatorship portion, - there is a rising opposition to a police state from both the pacifist on the left and the religious conservatives on the right. It could be argued that Israel is a dictatorship by Cabinet.

Originally posted by t020
Well, Israel isn't run by a bent, evil dictator, but if it was I'd like to think that the members of the (much better integrated) Jewish community would not blow up innocent UK civilians.




A lot weren't bothered - a lot were against the war in Iraq.

It does seem apparent that most Muslims put their religion first and foremost and as such, problems and divisions are inevitable. That's why the article by Boris makes so much sense - Muslims need to start identifying themselves as British first and foremost, and quite a large proportion (not all, maybe not even most) need to start integrating into the society that they/their parents/grandparents *chose* to immigrate to.

So what should happen to the British who have settled in for example Dubai. Should they be made to convert to Islam first?

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
So what should happen to the British who have settled in for example Dubai. Should they be made to convert to Islam first?


No, I never said Muslims should be made to convert did I? I said they should put the country which they *chose* to settle in BEFORE their religion. Brits living in foreign countries should also put their allegiance with their new country, especially when they're 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants (as is the case with many Muslims in Britain today).