My view on immigration is terribly simple: it is a moral one. I don't believe that, just because I was born in Isleworth, West London, that I should have any say over who else lives on this sceptered Isle.
Do you believe you should have any say in who lives in your house or would you raise no objections if someone from a poorer area decided to move in with you ?
I believe in strong property rights.
So, I don't believe anyone can live in my home - because that home is owned by me.
But if a man from Romania can afford to buy a house (or rent a flat) then he should be able to live here.
It goes without saying that I am broadly in favour of the abolition of the welfare state.
My ideal vision for Britain can be summarised by the opening paragraph of AJP Taylor's Origin's of the First World War:
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income.
I realise that my views are unlikely to be widely shared, and I do not expect them to be realised in my lifetime.
You really should take a look at the work of Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance. He may go a bit further that you or I would be comfortable with when it comes to freedom but his position is very much the one you have outlined here.
The UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election was a Black Pentecostal preacher.
Was he? Not that I'm aware of. Boxer, publican, entrepreneur, charity fund-raiser, youth inspirer, businessman, homophobe, maverick, booliak, but not preacher.
The mass movement of peoples causes violence. I'm sure our resident classicist Mr. Eagles could fill you in on the Helvetii and migrations in the late Roman Empire.
Sure he can.
Perhaps you could fill me in with the details of the massive problems we last had a competely open door policy for immigration - i.e. 1650 - 1914?
I can happilly fill you in on the all the violence that didn't follow the movement of people from Europe to North America in the late 19th Century.
Or before that the movement of Eastern European Jews into London.
Or before that the arrival of the French Hugenots.
Yes, people will be negatively impacted by immigration.
I don't deny that.
But just as I don't believe it's the government's job to get in the way of my decision to - say -buy computer code from a programmer in India, I don't believe the government should step in to prevent people from coming here to build a better life. So long as they accept that they will get no help when they get here (just as new immigrants getting off the boat at Ellis Island got to help).
Irrelevant - type in google search "BBC News child rape gangs" and you will see 1.27 million references to BBC news stories on cases in Derby , Rochdale , Oxford , Peterborough etc etc .
I do find it a slightly unnerving experience to be agreeing with Mark tonight but like TSE, he is absolutely correct to point out that the media - including the BBC - did indeed highlight these issues.
I suspect what MrJones is unhappy with is the fact that they did not immediately go OTT and claim these crimes were only ever committed by ethnic minorities (which of course would not be true anyway). It is not for the BBC news to get involved in the complex arguments about whether or not particular ethnic backgrounds are more susceptible to certain types of crime. That is not news it is detailed social research and things are rarely as clear cut as some people might want them to be. Not least because those ethnic minorities are themselves subdivided into many different branches and the sort of blanket accusations MrJones would like to see would be just as unfair and irresponsible as claiming that all men are rapists.
Irrelevant - type in google search "BBC News child rape gangs" and you will see 1.27 million references to BBC news stories on cases in Derby , Rochdale , Oxford , Peterborough etc etc .
I've actually tried what you've suggested and the results are all (relatively) recent.
Nick Griffin was prosecuted for a speech given in January 2004.
The BBC would have been better to actually investigate the allegations seriously, rather than get the, admittedly obnoxious, whistle-blower prosecuted.
As an aside, may I say how disappointed I am that a prospective MP, someone who would be holding the BBC to account, unquestioningly takes its side when it has an appalling record in covering-up child abuse, both by its employees and other 'favoured groups'.
I actually agree with almost everything you say in your (extremely well written) piece. I completely agree that (a) there are serious negative connotations from immigration, (b) that our political leaders have repeately lied to the people about it, and (c) that my vision of the world is unlikely to be shared by many people.
If I had the choice between the world we're currently in, and your world, I would unhesitatingly choose yours.
However, I strongly believe that many of the problems we associate with immigration are because the incentives we have put in place are absurd. If we were to remove the welfare state and open the gates, then the only people who would come here would be those confident enough of their own abilities to want to be somewhere where they could live off the fruits of their labours. Who wants to give up a year's income to travel here and die freezing and starving on the streets?
So when you said the BBC were ignoring it, you hadn't checked the facts or lying, I will let other PBers decide.
The BBC has a ignoble record of ignoring child rape, has it not, Mr. Eagles?
We're talking about gangs.
OK, then.
The BBC has a ignoble record of ignoring child rape gangs, has it not, Mr. Eagles?
No it doesn't , where is your evidence that it does ?
Panorama? Nick Griffin prosecution?
Ring any bells?
Irrelevant - type in google search "BBC News child rape gangs" and you will see 1.27 million references to BBC news stories on cases in Derby , Rochdale , Oxford , Peterborough etc etc .
I've actually tried what you've suggested and the results are all (relatively) recent.
Nick Griffin was prosecuted for a speech given in January 2004.
The BBC would have been better to actually investigate the allegations seriously, rather than get the, admittedly obnoxious, whistle-blower prosecuted.
As an aside, may I say how disappointed I am that a prospective MP, someone who would be holding the BBC to account, unquestioningly takes its side when it has an appalling record in covering-up child abuse, both by its employees and other 'favoured groups'.
Irrelevant - type in google search "BBC News child rape gangs" and you will see 1.27 million references to BBC news stories on cases in Derby , Rochdale , Oxford , Peterborough etc etc .
I do find it a slightly unnerving experience to be agreeing with Mark tonight but like TSE, he is absolutely correct to point out that the media - including the BBC - did indeed highlight these issues.
I suspect what MrJones is unhappy with is the fact that they did not immediately go OTT and claim these crimes were only ever committed by ethnic minorities (which of course would not be true anyway). It is not for the BBC news to get involved in the complex arguments about whether or not particular ethnic backgrounds are more susceptible to certain types of crime. That is not news it is detailed social research and things are rarely as clear cut as some people might want them to be. Not least because those ethnic minorities are themselves subdivided into many different branches and the sort of blanket accusations MrJones would like to see would be just as unfair and irresponsible as claiming that all men are rapists.
"type in google search "BBC News child rape gangs" and you will see 1.27 million references to BBC news stories on cases in Derby , Rochdale , Oxford , Peterborough etc etc"
My view on immigration is terribly simple: it is a moral one. I don't believe that, just because I was born in Isleworth, West London, that I should have any say over who else lives on this sceptered Isle.
Do you believe you should have any say in who lives in your house or would you raise no objections if someone from a poorer area decided to move in with you ?
I believe in strong property rights.
So, I don't believe anyone can live in my home - because that home is owned by me.
But if a man from Romania can afford to buy a house (or rent a flat) then he should be able to live here.
It goes without saying that I am broadly in favour of the abolition of the welfare state.
My ideal vision for Britain can be summarised by the opening paragraph of AJP Taylor's Origin's of the First World War:
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income.
I realise that my views are unlikely to be widely shared, and I do not expect them to be realised in my lifetime.
It seems, if you'll forgive me, a somewhat selfish and/or Darwinian view of "what's mine is mine and I have no obligation to others" and one which the main beneficiaries would be those of an upper-middle class background in rich western countries.
And it could be argued that the nation is as much the property of its citizens as a house is the property of its owner.
The mass movement of peoples causes violence. I'm sure our resident classicist Mr. Eagles could fill you in on the Helvetii and migrations in the late Roman Empire.
Sure he can.
Perhaps you could fill me in with the details of the massive problems we last had a competely open door policy for immigration - i.e. 1650 - 1914?
OK, so now you're trolling.
How is that relevant to an age of cheap mass air travel? Channel Tunnel to the Continent? Motorways? Etc.
The mass movement of peoples causes violence. I'm sure our resident classicist Mr. Eagles could fill you in on the Helvetii and migrations in the late Roman Empire.
I can happilly fill you in on the all the violence that didn't follow the movement of people from Europe to North America in the late 19th Century.
Please do. I think the Native Americans will find it most interesting.
The mass movement of peoples causes violence. I'm sure our resident classicist Mr. Eagles could fill you in on the Helvetii and migrations in the late Roman Empire.
I can happilly fill you in on the all the violence that didn't follow the movement of people from Europe to North America in the late 19th Century.
Or before that the movement of Eastern European Jews into London.
Or before that the arrival of the French Hugenots.
You'd be wrong, they had anti-French riots in Canterbury I believe. Although I am not sure I could find a reference for that (Pepys?) And there was plenty of ethnic violence in the Victorian East End.
Irrelevant - type in google search "BBC News child rape gangs" and you will see 1.27 million references to BBC news stories on cases in Derby , Rochdale , Oxford , Peterborough etc etc .
Incidentally, Mr. I'm-in-favour-of-free-borders, how many BME LibDem MPs are there?
Why would you think I would care about the ethnicity of the (soon to be diminished) Liberal Democrat parliamentary party?
Do you have any former LibDem councillors in your family?
Oh - is political allegiance inherited? Perhaps there's some genetic trait that correlates with LibDem-erry?
Well, yes, actually. Just look at Northern Ireland and voting patterns in the rest of country. There's definitely a correlation.
What annoys me about you are your glib assertions about immigration when you are quite obviously White, Anglo-Saxon and Post-Christian (Protestant?).
Try being Italian and Catholic in this country, or any other racial and religious minority, then perhaps you would have some experience of immigration from 'the other side'.
Something I've noticed is those most in favour of immigration are those who stand to benefit financially from it, but aren't affected by it. Hence my LibDem reference.
I'm in favour of immigration, and I'm definitely not White, Anglo-Saxon or a Protestant.
Good for you!
At least you've good some experience of the immigration experience and also will face the consequences of renewed immigration.
I'm talking about the pressure put on mosques, muslim schools and languages difficulties.
The WASP I referred to lives oblivious to this all.
Language difficulties? I can speak, inter alia, English, Urdu, Punjabi, German, French, Latin and Greek.
So when you said the BBC were ignoring it, you hadn't checked the facts or lying, I will let other PBers decide.
The BBC has a ignoble record of ignoring child rape, has it not, Mr. Eagles?
We're talking about gangs.
OK, then.
The BBC has a ignoble record of ignoring child rape gangs, has it not, Mr. Eagles?
No it doesn't , where is your evidence that it does ?
Panorama? Nick Griffin prosecution?
Ring any bells?
Irrelevant - type in google search "BBC News child rape gangs" and you will see 1.27 million references to BBC news stories on cases in Derby , Rochdale , Oxford , Peterborough etc etc .
I've actually tried what you've suggested and the results are all (relatively) recent.
Nick Griffin was prosecuted for a speech given in January 2004.
The BBC would have been better to actually investigate the allegations seriously, rather than get the, admittedly obnoxious, whistle-blower prosecuted.
As an aside, may I say how disappointed I am that a prospective MP, someone who would be holding the BBC to account, unquestioningly takes its side when it has an appalling record in covering-up child abuse, both by its employees and other 'favoured groups'.
Who is the prospective MP you are referring to ?
Sorry, it's another poster I'm referring to, not you (as far as I know).
Incidentally, Mr. I'm-in-favour-of-free-borders, how many BME LibDem MPs are there?
Why would you think I would care about the ethnicity of the (soon to be diminished) Liberal Democrat parliamentary party?
Do you have any former LibDem councillors in your family?
Oh - is political allegiance inherited? Perhaps there's some genetic trait that correlates with LibDem-erry?
Well, yes, actually. Just look at Northern Ireland and voting patterns in the rest of country. There's definitely a correlation.
What annoys me about you are your glib assertions about immigration when you are quite obviously White, Anglo-Saxon and Post-Christian (Protestant?).
Try being Italian and Catholic in this country, or any other racial and religious minority, then perhaps you would have some experience of immigration from 'the other side'.
Something I've noticed is those most in favour of immigration are those who stand to benefit financially from it, but aren't affected by it. Hence my LibDem reference.
I'm in favour of immigration, and I'm definitely not White, Anglo-Saxon or a Protestant.
Good for you!
At least you've good some experience of the immigration experience and also will face the consequences of renewed immigration.
I'm talking about the pressure put on mosques, muslim schools and languages difficulties.
The WASP I referred to lives oblivious to this all.
Language difficulties? I can speak, inter alia, English, Urdu, Punjabi, German, French, Latin and Greek.
Is that what you meant?
"Amongst others"? Blimey, what else do you speak?
Because I'm on the train a lot, I've started learning how to speak to Spanish and Portuguese and I want to learn how to speak Russian in the next few years.
Any one of my friends is teaching me how to speak Farsi, it was bloody annoying not to understand what was being said in the recent season of Homeland.
Incidentally, Mr. I'm-in-favour-of-free-borders, how many BME LibDem MPs are there?
Why would you think I would care about the ethnicity of the (soon to be diminished) Liberal Democrat parliamentary party?
Do you have any former LibDem councillors in your family?
Oh - is political allegiance inherited? Perhaps there's some genetic trait that correlates with LibDem-erry?
I'm in favour of immigration, and I'm definitely not White, Anglo-Saxon or a Protestant.
Good for you!
At least you've good some experience of the immigration experience and also will face the consequences of renewed immigration.
I'm talking about the pressure put on mosques, muslim schools and languages difficulties.
The WASP I referred to lives oblivious to this all.
Language difficulties? I can speak, inter alia, English, Urdu, Punjabi, German, French, Latin and Greek.
Is that what you meant?
Quite the linguist, aren't we, Mr. Eagles?
Shame the same can't be said of the immigrants coming here, or the teachers or clergy or rest of the population, which is notoriously bad at learning foreign languages.
Let's ignore immigration into Welsh-speaking areas.
Let's ignore different liturgies in different languages. (I had a woman behind me saying the Our Father and Hail Mary, but not in English, at mass today).
The parents outside my nephew's school talking to each other, but not in English.
These are all problems with mass immigration, not individual immigrants.
All the recent polls yet again show important the UKIP vote is, with UKIP polling from 10-18% if half that goes back to the Tories they would be at least tied with Labour if not ahead without winning a single Labour or LD vote!
Also sad news about Philip Seymour Hoffman, star of 'Scent of a Woman', 'The Talented Mr Ripley', 'Boogie Nights', 'Capote', 'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' and many more films and Broadway plays! A genuine character actor without a pretty face who got to the top through talent alone!
All the recent polls yet again show important the UKIP vote is, with UKIP polling from 10-18% if half that goes back to the Tories they would be at least tied with Labour if not ahead without winning a single Labour or LD vote!
"different liturgies in different languages." Why and where is this a problem?
Where? In London (and elsewhere).
Different liturgies? The (Latin) Catholic Church is in communion with other Eastern Churches. Their liturgy is in the Orthodox fashion.
So, not only have priests who are trained in their liturgies have to be provided, but space found in existing (Latin) Catholic Churches. Also, Catholic schools are affected when both types attend the same schools. On top of this, we also have the Ordinariate to deal with.
Languages? Those of the Latin Rite usually have their liturgy said in the vernacular. Unsurprisingly, this would be English in England. But, with Polish immigration, the Polish Churches have been swamped. The Polish Church in Ealing has the highest Sunday attendance of any Catholic church in London, including the cathedral.
I have compared the recent Polish influx as having all your relatives coming over to stay. You're pleased to see them, but boy is it hard work.
The mass movement of peoples causes violence. I'm sure our resident classicist Mr. Eagles could fill you in on the Helvetii and migrations in the late Roman Empire.
I can happilly fill you in on the all the violence that didn't follow the movement of people from Europe to North America in the late 19th Century.
Or before that the movement of Eastern European Jews into London.
Or before that the arrival of the French Hugenots.
You'd be wrong, they had anti-French riots in Canterbury I believe. Although I am not sure I could find a reference for that (Pepys?) And there was plenty of ethnic violence in the Victorian East End.
JackW Indeed, the GOP race could be literally anyone's with Christie now no longer frontrunner and I doubt Jeb will run. Meanwhile Hillary will enjoy the fight while measuring the drapes at the White House!
It's a largely futile quest, like trying to get all the overseas Brits to sign up for absentee ballots. They're in general not very interested, in my experience - even those who I can talk to in their home language.
"different liturgies in different languages." Why and where is this a problem?
Where? In London (and elsewhere).
Different liturgies? The (Latin) Catholic Church is in communion with other Eastern Churches. Their liturgy is in the Orthodox fashion.
So, not only have priests who are trained in their liturgies have to be provided, but space found in existing (Latin) Catholic Churches. Also, Catholic schools are affected when both types attend the same schools. On top of this, we also have the Ordinariate to deal with.
Languages? Those of the Latin Rite usually have their liturgy said in the vernacular. Unsurprisingly, this would be English in England. But, with Polish immigration, the Polish Churches have been swamped. The Polish Church in Ealing has the highest Sunday attendance of any Catholic church in London, including the cathedral.
I have compared the recent Polish influx as having all your relatives coming over to stay. You're pleased to see them, but boy is it hard work.
I fail to see the issue here. I grew up in a town with a massive Polish population left over from WW2. I was also brought up a Catholic and went to the local Catholic church prior to seeing the light and converting to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (All Hail his noodley appendage).
But atheistic joking aside, the mixed Anglo-Polish congregation with a large helping of Irish thrown in never had and never has a problem with a vernacular service in English. I suspect objections are being created out of thin air here.
It's interesting to note that Baxter is currently forecasting the LibDems winning 24 seats at the next GE, based on them securing 10.64% of the vote. Personally I expect them to win closer to, but probably no more than 40 seats. Those nice people at Ladbrokes are currently offering odds of 2.75/1 against them winning between 31-40 seats and a rather more generous 4/1 against them winning between 21-30 seats. Combining these by staking 57.1% and 42.9% respectively produces an equalised winning return of approximately 11/10 should the LibDems win between 21 - 40 seats which imho currently appears quite likely. DYOR.
JackW If Hillary does not run the GOP should win provided they do not nominate Cruz or maybe Paul, a poll last week showed all the other GOP top-tier beating Biden and Warren.
If Hillary runs she will buck the Historical trend whereby the opposition GOP should take the Oval Office after 8 years out of the presidency, she is the wife of a former president, with huge name recognition, experience and funding and with a centrist record and links to a southern state and upringing in the Midwest, even in 2008 she still beat Obama (the best candidate the Democrats have had since JFK and Bill Clinton) in the popular vote but lost the delegate count. Christie could still make it close though
If she stands she wins and if not then the race is far more entertaining as long as the GOP select someone from the human race.
She's going to run, isn't she? The only thing which will stop her is if she feels her health isn't up to it.
If she doesn't run for health reasons, then the interesting question is: whom would she try to anoint as her surrogate candidate? I'd guess a woman, and there aren't many women who are realistic contenders.
Edit: I have a friend who is a strong Hillary fan and a very active Democrat fund-raiser. I asked her whom she would back if Hillary didn't run; the answer was very interesting and surprising. It was... Chris Christie. But that was before he ran into a little local difficulty with a bridge.
"different liturgies in different languages." Why and where is this a problem?
Where? In London (and elsewhere).
Different liturgies? The (Latin) Catholic Church is in communion with other Eastern Churches. Their liturgy is in the Orthodox fashion.
So, not only have priests who are trained in their liturgies have to be provided, but space found in existing (Latin) Catholic Churches. Also, Catholic schools are affected when both types attend the same schools. On top of this, we also have the Ordinariate to deal with.
Languages? Those of the Latin Rite usually have their liturgy said in the vernacular. Unsurprisingly, this would be English in England. But, with Polish immigration, the Polish Churches have been swamped. The Polish Church in Ealing has the highest Sunday attendance of any Catholic church in London, including the cathedral.
I have compared the recent Polish influx as having all your relatives coming over to stay. You're pleased to see them, but boy is it hard work.
I fail to see the issue here. I grew up in a town with a massive Polish population left over from WW2. I was also brought up a Catholic and went to the local Catholic church prior to seeing the light and converting to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (All Hail his noodley appendage).
But atheistic joking aside, the mixed Anglo-Polish congregation with a large helping of Irish thrown in never had and never has a problem with a vernacular service in English. I suspect objections are being created out of thin air here.
A few notes on your posting.
I don't know how old you are, but those Poles left over from WW2 would have
a. Been in the UK a long time b. Have served in the RAF. c. Married English-speakers (The Great Patriotic Emigration was 70% male i.e. soldiers. In fact, a Polish Newspaper in the UK used to be called The Soldiers' Daily.)
I do have a list of Polish churches in England and Wales so I can look up the nearest one to you if you disclose the town.
The enormous differences between the WW2 immigration and the most recent one are:
a. Much more even gender split. b. Children brought over. c. Haven't served in British armed forces. d. No Iron Curtain preventing free movement between UK and Poland. e. EU membership f. Maxing out existing Polish provision. g. Satellite TV
I note you mention the large helping of Irish. That's exactly my point. I was immersed in an English-speaking environment i.e. Irish, but that's changed. Now, the environment is no longer Irish dominated, so English cannot be presumed to dominate.
I fail to see the issue here. I grew up in a town with a massive Polish population left over from WW2. I was also brought up a Catholic and went to the local Catholic church prior to seeing the light and converting to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (All Hail his noodley appendage).
But atheistic joking aside, the mixed Anglo-Polish congregation with a large helping of Irish thrown in never had and never has a problem with a vernacular service in English. I suspect objections are being created out of thin air here.
A few notes on your posting.
I don't know how old you are, but those Poles left over from WW2 would have
a. Been in the UK a long time b. Have served in the RAF. c. Married English-speakers (The Great Patriotic Emigration was 70% male i.e. soldiers. In fact, a Polish Newspaper in the UK used to be called The Soldiers' Daily.)
I do have a list of Polish churches in England and Wales so I can look up the nearest one to you if you disclose the town.
The enormous differences between the WW2 immigration and the most recent one are:
a. Much more even gender split. b. Children brought over. c. Haven't served in British armed forces. d. No Iron Curtain preventing free movement between UK and Poland. e. EU membership f. Maxing out existing Polish provision. g. Satellite TV
I note you mention the large helping of Irish. That's exactly my point. I was immersed in an English-speaking environment i.e. Irish, but that's changed. Now, the environment is no longer Irish dominated, so English cannot be presumed to dominate.
And yet strangely in spite of all the supposed reasons you give why their should be separation and alienation, there is not. The new wave of Poles who have come over have not insisted or even mentioned services in Polish and are content to attend the church (where my mother still serves) with its services in English.
I am not, as you may have seen earlier, a fan of either the EU or mass migration but the various claims of violence and alienation mentioned by some posters on here this evening are certainly not high on my list of reasons. They simply don't feature in my calculations because I do not encounter them in my regular dealings with migrant populations (or rather with individuals from those populations). .
Sorry been away. I grew up in holborn - which historically had very large italian population (and church and hospital) and irish plus some Spanish and some (French) African. If you wanted italian got latin) mass you could go to the italian church, in English (and latin) to st anselms and st Cecilia's. Large scale multi national immigration is the basis of (and the only future for) the Catholic Church in london.
Sorry been away. I grew up in holborn - which historically had very large italian population (and church and hospital) and irish plus some Spanish and some (French) African. If you wanted italian got latin) mass you could go to the italian church, in English (and latin) to st anselms and st Cecilia's. Large scale multi national immigration is the basis of (and the only future for) the Catholic Church in london.
St Anselms and St Cecilia's was the old Sardinian diplomatic chapel before it was demolished and re-built to accommodate Kingsway. The coat of arms was salvaged and put on the balcony.
St. Peter's is the Italian church for London and I attend it once a year on the third Sunday of July so I can hear the liturgy in Italian with my mother.
I disagree about immigration being the only future for the Catholic Church in London, though it certainly comes in useful for boosting the numbers. No, the future is secure simply through our high performing schools making the community schools look the learning-free zones they are.
I fail to see the issue here. I grew up in a town with a massive Polish population left over from WW2. I was also brought up a Catholic and went to the local Catholic church prior to seeing the light and converting to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (All Hail his noodley appendage).
But atheistic joking aside, the mixed Anglo-Polish congregation with a large helping of Irish thrown in never had and never has a problem with a vernacular service in English. I suspect objections are being created out of thin air here.
A few notes on your posting.
I don't know how old you are, but those Poles left over from WW2 would have
a. Been in the UK a long time b. Have served in the RAF. c. Married English-speakers (The Great Patriotic Emigration was 70% male i.e. soldiers. In fact, a Polish Newspaper in the UK used to be called The Soldiers' Daily.)
I do have a list of Polish churches in England and Wales so I can look up the nearest one to you if you disclose the town.
The enormous differences between the WW2 immigration and the most recent one are:
a. Much more even gender split. b. Children brought over. c. Haven't served in British armed forces. d. No Iron Curtain preventing free movement between UK and Poland. e. EU membership f. Maxing out existing Polish provision. g. Satellite TV
I note you mention the large helping of Irish. That's exactly my point. I was immersed in an English-speaking environment i.e. Irish, but that's changed. Now, the environment is no longer Irish dominated, so English cannot be presumed to dominate.
And yet strangely in spite of all the supposed reasons you give why their should be separation and alienation, there is not. The new wave of Poles who have come over have not insisted or even mentioned services in Polish and are content to attend the church (where my mother still serves) with its services in English.
I am not, as you may have seen earlier, a fan of either the EU or mass migration but the various claims of violence and alienation mentioned by some posters on here this evening are certainly not high on my list of reasons. They simply don't feature in my calculations because I do not encounter them in my regular dealings with migrant populations (or rather with individuals from those populations). .
You still haven't said which town this is.
It's quite obvious that it isn't a Polish church your mother is serving in, so the Poles are quite unlikely to demand services in their own language.
I think it may have something to do with the 'Myth of Return' common amongst emigrants. The WW2 generation knew they weren't going back so tried to re-create a home-from-home here in England.
Adam Boulton had these numbers in yesterday's Sunday Times from Thrasher and Rallings based on 100,000 actual council votes.This forms a good baseline,rather than opinion polls. LAB 34% TORIES 28% UKIP 17% LIB/Ds 13 %. It also says"in places where it stands, UKIP takes an average 22% and L/ds 15%" When it comes to actual votes cast,compared to opinion polls,both Labour and Tory are down,UKIP are up and the L/Ds are proving very resilient on the ground and there appears no "Rennard effect",although they make the point they have lost the "protest" bit of their vote to UKIP.
Comments
Perhaps you could fill me in with the details of the massive problems we last had a competely open door policy for immigration - i.e. 1650 - 1914?
I can happilly fill you in on the all the violence that didn't follow the movement of people from Europe to North America in the late 19th Century.
Or before that the movement of Eastern European Jews into London.
Or before that the arrival of the French Hugenots.
Yes, people will be negatively impacted by immigration.
I don't deny that.
But just as I don't believe it's the government's job to get in the way of my decision to - say -buy computer code from a programmer in India, I don't believe the government should step in to prevent people from coming here to build a better life. So long as they accept that they will get no help when they get here (just as new immigrants getting off the boat at Ellis Island got to help).
I suspect what MrJones is unhappy with is the fact that they did not immediately go OTT and claim these crimes were only ever committed by ethnic minorities (which of course would not be true anyway). It is not for the BBC news to get involved in the complex arguments about whether or not particular ethnic backgrounds are more susceptible to certain types of crime. That is not news it is detailed social research and things are rarely as clear cut as some people might want them to be. Not least because those ethnic minorities are themselves subdivided into many different branches and the sort of blanket accusations MrJones would like to see would be just as unfair and irresponsible as claiming that all men are rapists.
Nick Griffin was prosecuted for a speech given in January 2004.
The BBC would have been better to actually investigate the allegations seriously, rather than get the, admittedly obnoxious, whistle-blower prosecuted.
As an aside, may I say how disappointed I am that a prospective MP, someone who would be holding the BBC to account, unquestioningly takes its side when it has an appalling record in covering-up child abuse, both by its employees and other 'favoured groups'.
I actually agree with almost everything you say in your (extremely well written) piece. I completely agree that (a) there are serious negative connotations from immigration, (b) that our political leaders have repeately lied to the people about it, and (c) that my vision of the world is unlikely to be shared by many people.
If I had the choice between the world we're currently in, and your world, I would unhesitatingly choose yours.
However, I strongly believe that many of the problems we associate with immigration are because the incentives we have put in place are absurd. If we were to remove the welfare state and open the gates, then the only people who would come here would be those confident enough of their own abilities to want to be somewhere where they could live off the fruits of their labours. Who wants to give up a year's income to travel here and die freezing and starving on the streets?
You know how search engines work?
And it could be argued that the nation is as much the property of its citizens as a house is the property of its owner.
How is that relevant to an age of cheap mass air travel? Channel Tunnel to the Continent? Motorways? Etc. Please do. I think the Native Americans will find it most interesting.
And the Mexicans.
It's shielding me from the accursed BBC and its wicked lefty ways, yet feeding you as much socialist telly-tax funded tripe as you can eat.
Technology is a marvellous thing.
Any one of my friends is teaching me how to speak Farsi, it was bloody annoying not to understand what was being said in the recent season of Homeland.
GOP
•Jeb Bush 25% (22%)
•Marco Rubio 16% (18%)
•Rand Paul 11% (9%)
•Chris Christie 9% (14%)
•Ted Cruz 9% (12%)
•Paul Ryan 5% (6%)
•Scott Walker 5% (2%)
•Bobby Jindal 3% (3%)
Democratic
•Hillary Clinton 64% (70%)
•Joe Biden 9% (9%)
•Elizabeth Warren 5% (4%)
•Andrew Cuomo 1% (2%)
•Mark Warner 1% (1%)
•Martin O’Malley 1% (1%)
General Election
•Hillary Clinton (D) 49% {47%} [50%] (51%)
•Jeb Bush (R) 43% {45%} [43%] (40%)
•Hillary Clinton (D) 51% {50%} [53%] (52%)
•Marco Rubio (R) 41% {43%} [41%] (41%)
•Hillary Clinton (D) 52% {50%}
•Paul Ryan (R) 39% {42%}
•Hillary Clinton (D) 53% {51%}
•Rand Paul (R) 38% {41%}
•Hillary Clinton (D) 51% {45%}
•Chris Christie (R) 35% {41%}
•Hillary Clinton (D) 54% {52%}
•Ted Cruz (R) 34% {36%}
New twist in Plebgate row as MP is silenced: Andrew Mitchell blocked from telling a court how the scandal has damaged his life
Mr Mitchell was forced out of his cabinet job after a row with police officer
Was accused of defamatory language towards an officer at Downing Street
Prosecutors do not believe he was part of police conspiracy
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550267/New-twist-Plebgate-row-MP-silenced-Andrew-Mitchell-blocked-telling-court-scandal-damaged-life.html
Christie is moving rather dramatically unlike certain constituents on certain bridges and traffic choke points !!
He was 46 and won an oscar for Capote.
Shame the same can't be said of the immigrants coming here, or the teachers or clergy or rest of the population, which is notoriously bad at learning foreign languages.
Let's ignore immigration into Welsh-speaking areas.
Let's ignore different liturgies in different languages. (I had a woman behind me saying the Our Father and Hail Mary, but not in English, at mass today).
The parents outside my nephew's school talking to each other, but not in English.
These are all problems with mass immigration, not individual immigrants.
http://www.thephinsider.com/2014/2/2/5369852/super-bowl-prop-bets-2014-a-list-of-prop-bets-for-todays-game
I'm about to don my Aikman jersey (he's calling the game on the Fox TV network) and head out to a superbowl party
Different liturgies? The (Latin) Catholic Church is in communion with other Eastern Churches. Their liturgy is in the Orthodox fashion.
So, not only have priests who are trained in their liturgies have to be provided, but space found in existing (Latin) Catholic Churches. Also, Catholic schools are affected when both types attend the same schools. On top of this, we also have the Ordinariate to deal with.
Languages? Those of the Latin Rite usually have their liturgy said in the vernacular. Unsurprisingly, this would be English in England. But, with Polish immigration, the Polish Churches have been swamped. The Polish Church in Ealing has the highest Sunday attendance of any Catholic church in London, including the cathedral.
I have compared the recent Polish influx as having all your relatives coming over to stay. You're pleased to see them, but boy is it hard work.
If she stands she wins and if not then the race is far more entertaining as long as the GOP select someone from the human race.
From a Australian Catholic website:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_asylum_seekers_who_frightened_elizabethan_england
Express doing its bit for the Union
pic.twitter.com/7dfKDsPrg6
For the future to come will be the first latino, jewish and gay Presidents
But atheistic joking aside, the mixed Anglo-Polish congregation with a large helping of Irish thrown in never had and never has a problem with a vernacular service in English. I suspect objections are being created out of thin air here.
It's interesting to note that Baxter is currently forecasting the LibDems winning 24 seats at the next GE, based on them securing 10.64% of the vote.
Personally I expect them to win closer to, but probably no more than 40 seats.
Those nice people at Ladbrokes are currently offering odds of 2.75/1 against them winning between 31-40 seats and a rather more generous 4/1 against them winning between 21-30 seats. Combining these by staking 57.1% and 42.9% respectively produces an equalised winning return of approximately 11/10 should the LibDems win between 21 - 40 seats which imho currently appears quite likely.
DYOR.
UKIP, Slough — Ken Wight
http://www.sloughexpress.co.uk/News/All-Areas/Slough/UKIP-selects-general-election-candidate-for-Slough-13012014.htm
If Hillary runs she will buck the Historical trend whereby the opposition GOP should take the Oval Office after 8 years out of the presidency, she is the wife of a former president, with huge name recognition, experience and funding and with a centrist record and links to a southern state and upringing in the Midwest, even in 2008 she still beat Obama (the best candidate the Democrats have had since JFK and Bill Clinton) in the popular vote but lost the delegate count. Christie could still make it close though
If she doesn't run for health reasons, then the interesting question is: whom would she try to anoint as her surrogate candidate? I'd guess a woman, and there aren't many women who are realistic contenders.
Edit: I have a friend who is a strong Hillary fan and a very active Democrat fund-raiser. I asked her whom she would back if Hillary didn't run; the answer was very interesting and surprising. It was... Chris Christie. But that was before he ran into a little local difficulty with a bridge.
https://twitter.com/AndreaParma82
Edit: Or are they still there, if so, can someone post a link to them please.
I don't know how old you are, but those Poles left over from WW2 would have
a. Been in the UK a long time
b. Have served in the RAF.
c. Married English-speakers (The Great Patriotic Emigration was 70% male i.e. soldiers. In fact, a Polish Newspaper in the UK used to be called The Soldiers' Daily.)
I do have a list of Polish churches in England and Wales so I can look up the nearest one to you if you disclose the town.
The enormous differences between the WW2 immigration and the most recent one are:
a. Much more even gender split.
b. Children brought over.
c. Haven't served in British armed forces.
d. No Iron Curtain preventing free movement between UK and Poland.
e. EU membership
f. Maxing out existing Polish provision.
g. Satellite TV
I note you mention the large helping of Irish. That's exactly my point. I was immersed in an English-speaking environment i.e. Irish, but that's changed. Now, the environment is no longer Irish dominated, so English cannot be presumed to dominate.
I don't know how old you are, but those Poles left over from WW2 would have
a. Been in the UK a long time
b. Have served in the RAF.
c. Married English-speakers (The Great Patriotic Emigration was 70% male i.e. soldiers. In fact, a Polish Newspaper in the UK used to be called The Soldiers' Daily.)
I do have a list of Polish churches in England and Wales so I can look up the nearest one to you if you disclose the town.
The enormous differences between the WW2 immigration and the most recent one are:
a. Much more even gender split.
b. Children brought over.
c. Haven't served in British armed forces.
d. No Iron Curtain preventing free movement between UK and Poland.
e. EU membership
f. Maxing out existing Polish provision.
g. Satellite TV
I note you mention the large helping of Irish. That's exactly my point. I was immersed in an English-speaking environment i.e. Irish, but that's changed. Now, the environment is no longer Irish dominated, so English cannot be presumed to dominate.
And yet strangely in spite of all the supposed reasons you give why their should be separation and alienation, there is not. The new wave of Poles who have come over have not insisted or even mentioned services in Polish and are content to attend the church (where my mother still serves) with its services in English.
I am not, as you may have seen earlier, a fan of either the EU or mass migration but the various claims of violence and alienation mentioned by some posters on here this evening are certainly not high on my list of reasons. They simply don't feature in my calculations because I do not encounter them in my regular dealings with migrant populations (or rather with individuals from those populations). .
St. Peter's is the Italian church for London and I attend it once a year on the third Sunday of July so I can hear the liturgy in Italian with my mother.
I disagree about immigration being the only future for the Catholic Church in London, though it certainly comes in useful for boosting the numbers. No, the future is secure simply through our high performing schools making the community schools look the learning-free zones they are.
And yet strangely in spite of all the supposed reasons you give why their should be separation and alienation, there is not. The new wave of Poles who have come over have not insisted or even mentioned services in Polish and are content to attend the church (where my mother still serves) with its services in English.
I am not, as you may have seen earlier, a fan of either the EU or mass migration but the various claims of violence and alienation mentioned by some posters on here this evening are certainly not high on my list of reasons. They simply don't feature in my calculations because I do not encounter them in my regular dealings with migrant populations (or rather with individuals from those populations). .
You still haven't said which town this is.
It's quite obvious that it isn't a Polish church your mother is serving in, so the Poles are quite unlikely to demand services in their own language.
I think it may have something to do with the 'Myth of Return' common amongst emigrants. The WW2 generation knew they weren't going back so tried to re-create a home-from-home here in England.
I thought translations of the Koran were frowned upon in Islam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQB7QRyF4p4
#BestBuds
LAB 34%
TORIES 28%
UKIP 17%
LIB/Ds 13 %.
It also says"in places where it stands, UKIP takes an average 22% and L/ds 15%"
When it comes to actual votes cast,compared to opinion polls,both Labour and Tory are down,UKIP are up and the L/Ds are proving very resilient on the ground and there appears no "Rennard effect",although they make the point they have lost the "protest" bit of their vote to UKIP.