My original question was does anyone one know how to extrapolate the "1 in 9 schools have majority of kids that don't have English as first language" to see how long it would be before 25% of population don't have English as first language.
40 years?
These children aren't immigrants remember, they are British citizens that don't have English as their first language. Am I wrong to be bothered/worried?
You are not wrong to be bothered/worried.
However, I believe the kids of these kids are highly unlikely not to have English as their first language, so one would expect that over time - and assuming that non-EU immigration stays at its current much more modest level - that the effect should fade.
It's like Minnesota in the US. 100 years ago, Swedish and German were the most common languages there - and there would be renewed waves of immigration from those countries post WW1. Yet, the language of the immigrants died out, because the immigrants kids found it economically advantageous to speak English rather than to stick with the language of their parents.
Hmm I dunno
If children of immigrants are living in areas where the country/culture their parents emigrated from is dominant, and attending schools where the often very large majority speaks the language of that country, I can only see the percentage of people who speak don't speak English at home increasing.
It has not happened in the past. Jewish kids in the East End grew up surrounded by Jews and were educated in Jewish schools where they were taught in Yiddish. But they all ended up speaking English.
Jews have long had a culture of learning and, outside the ultra-orthodox community, a tradition of integration to their host communities. The same can not be said for all ethnic groups. Almost every teacher of Muslim kids I've known has heard it been said in their class "I can't play with you - you're not Somali/Bengali/etc".
It's not something I have ever heard from the teachers I know. My wife taught in Haringey and Islington before we moved up here and never mentioned it.
Of course, when they first arrived in the 19th century the Jews did not integrate. They congregated and were viewed with extreme suspicion by the local population and the powers that be.
Is it really? Where? I admit: I really don't want to believe this.
I must admit I was very shocked to learn that in the early noughties Scotland Yard + the met was essentially an open book to organised criminals. Scores of officers were apparently corrupt.
Then again, it was during Ian Blair's utterly disastrous tenure, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
My original question was does anyone one know how to extrapolate the "1 in 9 schools have majority of kids that don't have English as first language" to see how long it would be before 25% of population don't have English as first language.
40 years?
These children aren't immigrants remember, they are British citizens that don't have English as their first language. Am I wrong to be bothered/worried?
You are not wrong to be bothered/worried.
However, I believe the kids of these kids are highly unlikely not to have English as their first language, so one would expect that over time - and assuming that non-EU immigration stays at its current much more modest level - that the effect should fade.
It's like Minnesota in the US. 100 years ago, Swedish and German were the most common languages there - and there would be renewed waves of immigration from those countries post WW1. Yet, the language of the immigrants died out, because the immigrants kids found it economically advantageous to speak English rather than to stick with the language of their parents.
Wasn't it more to do with a law that made it compulsory for English to be the primary language in public schools?
Isn't English the primary language in public schools in the UK?
In England, maybe. In Wales schools can have either English or Welsh as their primary medium of education and in parts of the country Welsh medium education is the norm, not English.
Mr. Observer, is that a relevant comparison, given the centuries that have passed, the changes in society and so forth?
In the sense that it is probably much harder to avoid English now than it was then - and that all the children of immigrants are taught in English these days - probably not.
It's not something I have ever heard from the teachers I know. My wife taught in Haringey and Islington before we moved up here and never mentioned it.
Of course, when they first arrived in the 19th century the Jews did not integrate. They congregated and were viewed with extreme suspicion by the local population and the powers that be.
Right, when they first arrived, but that changed rather quickly. Meanwhile, Muslims in the UK tend to be less integrated with time. Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s. Just look at Bradford - is it any more integrated than 30 years ago? If not, then why do you think things will change in future? The reality is that strong religious views are an enormous bulwark to cultural change.
PS. Ask your wife if the Muslim kids would be just as likely to invite non-Muslims to their house as Muslims.
Mr. Observer, perhaps we should pass a similar law.
Everyone in this country must be able to speak English.
I would be very surprised if that was not the law already with regard to schools: kids have to be taught in English. That's one of the reasons why the children of immigrants become fluent in English. And however hard you try, the language is pervasive - even in the highest density immigrant areas you just cannot escape it on the TV, on advertising, in shops, on the internet and so on. .
Must be very difficult to be a teacher in a school where the kids speak to each other in foreign language. And must be great fun to be a kid where the teacher can't understand you!
Are most teachers in Tower Hamlets able to speak Urdu do you think? Or Bengali, excuse my ignorance
Mr. Socrates, you stole my thunder! I logged in to post about that.
Paying the EU every year is like pouring gold into a colander.
Scary number from that piece "64% of British respondents said they believed corruption to be widespread in the UK"
I'd have to agree with them.
Is it really? Where? I admit: I really don't want to believe this.
Soft, legal, corruption is everywhere. It's why Tim Yeo, a man with vast personal energy interests, was allowed to chair the Energy Committee. It's why former ministers and civil servants get employed by companies they were previously regulating.
Incidently that's a reminder for those for those claiming the polls are static. Yes, since about September last year they have been for all four parties. However, the kippers are very slowly edging up and it was last Feb that really saw their rise before the May local elections hit the VI polling. So you would expect it to start kicking in with a vengeance very soon if it mirrors the kind of rise we saw last year. Of course after May the softest tory kipper voters jump back to the tories fairly sharpish yet they still keep enough tories to put the kipper VI higher at the end of 2013 than the start.
Well, they're related. Cammie and Osbrowne's disastrous attempts to pander to swivel-eyed immigration obsessives have uneccessarily given UKIP an extra boost.
Indeed. The 'EU Veto flounce that wasn't' was yet another hilarious master strategy gone wrong aimed at gullible Eurosceptics. It just made the impact of the Omnishambles that much more devastating for the tories and that much more beneficial for the kippers as droves of the soft tory voters started abandoning the tory ship and jumping over to the HMS Kipper.
Mr. Socrates, you stole my thunder! I logged in to post about that.
Paying the EU every year is like pouring gold into a colander.
Scary number from that piece "64% of British respondents said they believed corruption to be widespread in the UK"
I'd have to agree with them.
Is it really? Where? I admit: I really don't want to believe this.
Soft, legal, corruption is everywhere. It's why Tim Yeo, a man with vast personal energy interests, was allowed to chair the Energy Committee. It's why former ministers and civil servants get employed by companies they were previously regulating.
"Mm, yes, that is pretty much the analysis (bearing in mind that a lot of Unionist criticism however carefully fails to make the point that if their analysis is correct, that the Scottish economy is in the sharn, then the UK economy is if anything in deeper doo).
However, there is a major report coming out in the FT tonight/tomorrow so it may be as well to wait to see what that says - from the taster on wingsoverscotland it looks as if it will be very relevant (owed to @Mick_Pork for spotting it - http://wingsoverscotland.com/unleashing-a-firestorm/)"
Well of course the UK economy is in the crap. Anyone laughnig at Scotland declining oil reserves would do well to remember it's the UK reserves which are declining too and at present none of the main parties have a clue what to do about replacing it.
As for WoS it always bigs things up, it's like expecting the Express to miss property prices.
Quite re Wings - but there is not much choice otherwise given the nature of the DT and its fellows in the usual media which tend to blank out anything of the sort. And (as I said) we can best wait till tomorrow for the FT (or tonight for the online one).
Maybe the choice is the point. Just because you don't like what some of the press are saying doesn't mean they are wrong or shouldn't be considered. Salmond's taking a bet on oil; he might have had a point in 1979 but in 2014 it's a bit late.
Wouldn't be here if I wasn't trying to get a broader view. But so much of what is in the DT etc is just rabid, and most newspapers are so unionist that they won't consider the other side , with some honourable exceptions in the Herald - and that mainly in the comment article sections. Which is why Tom Hunter's new site could be interesting.
Mr. Observer, perhaps we should pass a similar law.
Everyone in this country must be able to speak English.
I would be very surprised if that was not the law already with regard to schools: kids have to be taught in English. That's one of the reasons why the children of immigrants become fluent in English. And however hard you try, the language is pervasive - even in the highest density immigrant areas you just cannot escape it on the TV, on advertising, in shops, on the internet and so on. .
Must be very difficult to be a teacher in a school where the kids speak to each other in foreign language. And must be great fun to be a kid where the teacher can't understand you!
Are most teachers in Tower Hamlets able to speak Urdu do you think? Or Bengali, excuse my ignorance
It's certainly difficult. I know a teacher who worked in a Camden school who asked her teaching assistants (all parents of some of the kids) to speak English rather than Bengali in her presence. The assistants immediately took a strong dislike to her, and started speaking as much in Bengali as possible to spite her. She went to her head teacher to complain, and the head teacher said she was being racist to want them to speak English. She went to the NUT, and they told her the same.
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's not something I have ever heard from the teachers I know. My wife taught in Haringey and Islington before we moved up here and never mentioned it.
Of course, when they first arrived in the 19th century the Jews did not integrate. They congregated and were viewed with extreme suspicion by the local population and the powers that be.
Right, when they first arrived, but that changed rather quickly. Meanwhile, Muslims in the UK tend to be less integrated with time. Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s. Just look at Bradford - is it any more integrated than 30 years ago? If not, then why do you think things will change in future? The reality is that strong religious views are an enormous bulwark to cultural change.
How do you define "rather quickly"? The Jews began arriving in the UK in large numbers in the mid-19th century, the Aliens Act was passed 50 years later.
Integration is a two way street. If posters on this board are right, the large-scale arrival of immigrants into an area causes the previous population to up sticks and leave. Given that, with the best will in the world it's difficult to see how people can integrate. It certainly does seem that some younger muslims are more radical - or perhaps, more accurately, more visibly and vocally radical - than their parents and grandparents were. I tend to think that there are a number of reasons for this, not all of which reflect well on our parents and grandparents.
The propensity for Tories to stick knives into each other more frequently could spell very bad news for Cameron.Tories have always excelled in bumping people off if deemed surplus to requirements.
Alanbrooke said: From memory oil is over 10% of the scottish economy, it's not a bonus it's fundamental. What else are you going to fall back on the successful banking sector ?
Scotland won't have a successful banking sector though. If they go for Sterling then it will be regulated by the BoE and there would be huge pressure to relocate as ultimately the English could not tolerate a foreign power creaing money and derivative positions which English taxpayers were liable for. We see from the Euro that currency union requires transfer union and an England that had just been told to F off would not do that. Edinburgh's current success comes from its position as a branch office of the City
GDP per person excluding OIL is almost the same as UK, so it would just mean we would be back where we are now if giving it out free. Given no matter what happens oil will still be there and will not be cheap it will not mean we should be stupid enough to continue to give 100% of it away as we do now.
On average the UK doesn't pay it's way - go figure.
Only 3 regions do so London, SE and Scotland. Take out oil and Scotland is somewhere around Lancashire. Or put another way the Labour recession killed off nearly 10% of the economy that's what it would be like until some new businesses took over or enough people emigrated.
Yes if it all disappeared we would be borrowing as per now, but it is a very unlikely scenario in the short term regardless of what middle east does. So worst case we would still be better off than we are now even if needing to borrow.
On a point of detail - do those figures for Scotland include oil at all, please? Certainly for some gmt purposes, the oil revenue is or was ascribed to Extra Regio, or some such name, for its own "region".
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
"Mm, yes, that is pretty much the analysis (bearing in mind that a lot of Unionist criticism however carefully fails to make the point that if their analysis is correct, that the Scottish economy is in the sharn, then the UK economy is if anything in deeper doo).
However, there is a major report coming out in the FT tonight/tomorrow so it may be as well to wait to see what that says - from the taster on wingsoverscotland it looks as if it will be very relevant (owed to @Mick_Pork for spotting it - http://wingsoverscotland.com/unleashing-a-firestorm/)"
Well of course the UK economy is in the crap. Anyone laughnig at Scotland declining oil reserves would do well to remember it's the UK reserves which are declining too and at present none of the main parties have a clue what to do about replacing it.
As for WoS it always bigs things up, it's like expecting the Express to miss property prices.
Quite re Wings - but there is not much choice otherwise given the nature of the DT and its fellows in the usual media which tend to blank out anything of the sort. And (as I said) we can best wait till tomorrow for the FT (or tonight for the online one).
Maybe the choice is the point. Just because you don't like what some of the press are saying doesn't mean they are wrong or shouldn't be considered. Salmond's taking a bet on oil; he might have had a point in 1979 but in 2014 it's a bit late.
Wouldn't be here if I wasn't trying to get a broader view. But so much of what is in the DT etc is just rabid, and most newspapers are so unionist that they won't consider the other side , with some honourable exceptions in the Herald - and that mainly in the comment article sections. Which is why Tom Hunter's new site could be interesting.
The fact that PB tories shriek like a scalded cat about BBC bias against the tories most days on PB is all you need to know about the hypocrisy of those who unaccountably seem happy to turn a blind eye to the overwhelmingly unionist press in scotland. Indeed rants against the BBC might even come a close second to rants against immigrants and those who 'don't talk the language' from the swivel-eyed loons.
Mr. Observer, is that a relevant comparison, given the centuries that have passed, the changes in society and so forth?
In the sense that it is probably much harder to avoid English now than it was then - and that all the children of immigrants are taught in English these days - probably not.
The tv /advertising example you gave earlier as an example of not being able to avoid English isn't really valid. It is far easier to watch tv in an Asian language than ever before. Channels 780-858 on sky are all Asian, as are the adverts on those channels. I often watch cricket on Zee tv and the ads are great, advertising local businesses in a way you don't see for most channels. if you were so inclined it would be easy to watch nothing else but Asian tv
The propensity for Tories to stick knives into each other more frequently could spell very bad news for Cameron.Tories have always excelled in bumping people off if deemed surplus to requirements.
It's becoming quite clear that the rumblings from unhappy tory activists are getting almost as loud as that of the tory rebels. How could it be otherwise when most of the tory rebels are terrified of the impact of the kippers in their own seats?
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
It's not something I have ever heard from the teachers I know. My wife taught in Haringey and Islington before we moved up here and never mentioned it.
Of course, when they first arrived in the 19th century the Jews did not integrate. They congregated and were viewed with extreme suspicion by the local population and the powers that be.
Right, when they first arrived, but that changed rather quickly. Meanwhile, Muslims in the UK tend to be less integrated with time. Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s. Just look at Bradford - is it any more integrated than 30 years ago? If not, then why do you think things will change in future? The reality is that strong religious views are an enormous bulwark to cultural change.
How do you define "rather quickly"? The Jews began arriving in the UK in large numbers in the mid-19th century, the Aliens Act was passed 50 years later.
Integration is a two way street. If posters on this board are right, the large-scale arrival of immigrants into an area causes the previous population to up sticks and leave. Given that, with the best will in the world it's difficult to see how people can integrate. It certainly does seem that some younger muslims are more radical - or perhaps, more accurately, more visibly and vocally radical - than their parents and grandparents were. I tend to think that there are a number of reasons for this, not all of which reflect well on our parents and grandparents.
" If posters on this board are right, the large-scale arrival of immigrants into an area causes the previous population to up sticks and leave. Given that, with the best will in the world it's difficult to see how people can integrate"
Chicken and the egg maybe, but I would say its the large scale that causes the lack of integration
It's not something I have ever heard from the teachers I know. My wife taught in Haringey and Islington before we moved up here and never mentioned it.
Of course, when they first arrived in the 19th century the Jews did not integrate. They congregated and were viewed with extreme suspicion by the local population and the powers that be.
Right, when they first arrived, but that changed rather quickly. Meanwhile, Muslims in the UK tend to be less integrated with time. Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s. Just look at Bradford - is it any more integrated than 30 years ago? If not, then why do you think things will change in future? The reality is that strong religious views are an enormous bulwark to cultural change.
How do you define "rather quickly"? The Jews began arriving in the UK in large numbers in the mid-19th century, the Aliens Act was passed 50 years later.
Integration is a two way street. If posters on this board are right, the large-scale arrival of immigrants into an area causes the previous population to up sticks and leave. Given that, with the best will in the world it's difficult to see how people can integrate. It certainly does seem that some younger muslims are more radical - or perhaps, more accurately, more visibly and vocally radical - than their parents and grandparents were. I tend to think that there are a number of reasons for this, not all of which reflect well on our parents and grandparents.
The Aliens Act was passed in 1905 in reaction to Russian Jewish immigration, which happened in the previous decade. The Jewish immigration a half century earlier was rather successful. The tolerant Brits accepted a Jew as Prime Minister in 1874, for goodness' sake. Also, I do love how the adoption of barbaric views by young Muslims is the fault of white grandparents. Indian Hindus, who have had an identical immigration experience, are widely accepted. There's an inherent masochism among white lefties sometimes. It's an utterly ridiculous assertion. This is what Boris Johnson says when he talks about the "rank intellectual dishonesty" of the left. You can't face facts when they're inconvenient. Just like the Germans are to blame for starting WWI, poor integration into UK society is the fault of those groups that aren't integrating.
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
Mr. Observer, is that a relevant comparison, given the centuries that have passed, the changes in society and so forth?
In the sense that it is probably much harder to avoid English now than it was then - and that all the children of immigrants are taught in English these days - probably not.
The tv /advertising example you gave earlier as an example of not being able to avoid English isn't really valid. It is far easier to watch tv in an Asian language than ever before. Channels 780-858 on sky are all Asian, as are the adverts on those channels. I often watch cricket on Zee tv and the ads are great, advertising local businesses in a way you don't see for most channels. if you were so inclined it would be easy to watch nothing else but Asian tv
And remember Welsh and Gaelic - both used for primary teaching medium in some schools in Wales and Scotland btw. I don't know enough about education to make any further comment about the pedagogical merits, but also note that BBC Alba (Gaelic TV) has some excellent programmes - when I had time to watch TV I really enjoyed Eorpa, the European current affairs magazine programme. (They are subtitled, in case anyone wonders.)
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
How do you know that today's over-55s did not hold more radical views when they were younger?
The lack of radical protests? The absence of bombings on London transport systems? The non-existence of young Muslims with British passports going off to fight for jihadist groups?
The propensity for Tories to stick knives into each other more frequently could spell very bad news for Cameron.Tories have always excelled in bumping people off if deemed surplus to requirements.
Better that than sticking by poor performers - see Portsmouth, Doncaster etc..
Mr. Observer, is that a relevant comparison, given the centuries that have passed, the changes in society and so forth?
In the sense that it is probably much harder to avoid English now than it was then - and that all the children of immigrants are taught in English these days - probably not.
The tv /advertising example you gave earlier as an example of not being able to avoid English isn't really valid. It is far easier to watch tv in an Asian language than ever before. Channels 780-858 on sky are all Asian, as are the adverts on those channels. I often watch cricket on Zee tv and the ads are great, advertising local businesses in a way you don't see for most channels. if you were so inclined it would be easy to watch nothing else but Asian tv
Did you watch the recent Sri-Lanka - Pakistan test ?
What a great 4th innings by Pakistan ! THE innings of the decade thus far for me.
@Socrates - I agree that integration is the fault of people who are not integrating. As I say, that is often a two way street.
I don't condone radicalisation, I am merely seeking to explain it. And I think it is undeniable that a lot of Asian immigrants in the 60s, 70s and 80s were given a very hard time by local populations in terms of physical attacks and ostracisation. That Hindus did not and have not reacted in the same way as some Moslems is hugely to their credit, I agree.
Mr. Observer, is that a relevant comparison, given the centuries that have passed, the changes in society and so forth?
In the sense that it is probably much harder to avoid English now than it was then - and that all the children of immigrants are taught in English these days - probably not.
The tv /advertising example you gave earlier as an example of not being able to avoid English isn't really valid. It is far easier to watch tv in an Asian language than ever before. Channels 780-858 on sky are all Asian, as are the adverts on those channels. I often watch cricket on Zee tv and the ads are great, advertising local businesses in a way you don't see for most channels. if you were so inclined it would be easy to watch nothing else but Asian tv
Did you watch the recent Sri-Lanka - Pakistan test ?
What a great 4th innings by Pakistan ! THE innings of the decade thus far for me.
I didn't, I mainly used my subscription to watch last years Bangladeshi Premier League..
BENT!
The adverts for local businesses are great, its like what Id imagine Cable tv in America to be like. Would love there to be local tv round my way, I think it must be great for community
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
How do you know that today's over-55s did not hold more radical views when they were younger?
The lack of radical protests? The absence of bombings on London transport systems? The non-existence of young Muslims with British passports going off to fight for jihadist groups?
Holding radical views does not mean that you have to act on them. A tiny minority - a minute fraction of one percent - of young Moslems have acted on their views.
It could be argued that the horrors of trench warfare were caused by British intervention on the Marne in September 1914 - the Germans were on the verge of defeating France.
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
How do you know that today's over-55s did not hold more radical views when they were younger?
The lack of radical protests? The absence of bombings on London transport systems? The non-existence of young Muslims with British passports going off to fight for jihadist groups?
Holding radical views does not mean that you have to act on them. A tiny minority - a minute fraction of one percent - of young Moslems have acted on their views.
....or it could be that the first generation immigrants were less radical
@isam Is there a sport that isn't either chemically or financially bent though ?
I suppose the Premier League is probably as close to financially unbent (Excluding the whole fit and proper owners discussion - which this isn't about...) as you can get with the large financial rewards for winning, as the prize money gets lower so bent bookies/syndicates potential offerings are higher as a ratio.
But then again as prize money goes up so the probability of Performance Enhancing Drug usage must probably go up too...
There's isn't a single line between Super Pro-British and Evil Terrorist Scum. Intolerance can occur in other ways. We now have a de facto blasphemy law against depicting Mohammed despite the fact that the vast majority aren't Muslims. The intolerant, over-sensitive and threatening response to the Danish cartoons and the cowed, frightened (understandably...) reaction by the media, coupled with the pathetic lack of leadership by politicians, has led to this.
And now we have the insufferably smug Paxman interrogating a cartoonist for having the temerity to be 'offensive' and not obeying a custom of Islam (despite being an atheist). That's deeply unhealthy, both for the good of the country and when it comes to any hope of the state broadcaster actually supporting freedom of speech instead of the intolerant, arrogant creatures who demand that their particular opinions and beliefs be beyond examination, criticism or ridicule.
I must admit, my experience of having been to a majority Muslim school in Bedford - Biddenham Upper School (www.mybiddenham.com), is that people integrate more and more as they get older. At school, and in a majority Muslim area, the white kids tended to hang out with the white kids, the Bangladeshi children with the other Bangladeshi children, etc.
As people leave the narrow confines of school and go on to university or into the world of work, they become increasingly integrated. Looking through my Facebook feed, I have perhaps 10 friends of Asian Muslim descent from my time there - of which I suspect exactly none of their kids speak Urdu as a first language. Now, there may be some element of selection bias, and Bedford is not Bradford, but my direct experience is of increased integration as people get older, and of second and third generation immigrants being more integrated than their parents.
I am as disturbed as Socrates as the idea of Sharia Law in the UK. That said, I don't think the majority of self-described Muslims in their late teens or early 20s even go to Mosque. Few have genuinely thought about what Sharia law might actually mean.
While I know this is all anecdote, the Muslim kids of 18-25 that I know tend to eschew Pork (because they're Muslim), but to be quite - how to say it - *familiar* with alcohol. If they say 'yes' to Sharia, it is as likely because they associate it with kosher. Of course, this doesn't go that way to explain all the survey's findings, but it is rather interesting.
@isam Is there a sport that isn't either chemically or financially bent though ?
I suppose the Premier League is probably as close to financially unbent (Excluding the whole fit and proper owners discussion - which this isn't about...) as you can get with the large financial rewards for winning, as the prize money gets lower so bent bookies/syndicates potential offerings are higher as a ratio.
But then again as prize money goes up so the probability of Performance Enhancing Drug usage must probably go up too...
To be fair, the worse the standard, the bigger the likelihood of extreme collapses, no balls under pressure etc so the BPL probably looks more corrupt than it is
I'm glad I went to school with many Muslims, incidentally. It helps to remind me that the majority are just like anyone else, and not the foam-flecked lunatics who marched through London demanding that those who insult Islam be beheaded. I sympathise with them when such actions make the religion's adherents appear backward and vile.
I know I keep banging on about this Jesus and Mo thing, but freedom of speech is critically important. The idea that being 'offensive' is sufficient to make something illegal or forbidden (or censored/self-censored out of fear) deeply angers me. The fact we seem to be moving backwards from the 20th/19th century in this regard is very troubling.
Let's assume for arguments sake you're right. Given there are three million muslims in Britain, what's to be done?
Oh God...
The 2011 Census reported that those adhering to no religion outnumbered Muslims by more than five-to-one. Given that the UK is explicitly a Christian State, where the Head of State is Defender of the Faith and Supreme head of the national church, these people who refuse to integrate into the daily life of the nation are a mortal threat to the continuation of its unique culture.
This explains why the ever so level-headed Prince of Wales has stated that it is his desire to become "Defender of the Faiths" and so unite the religious of this land in a Holy Crusade against those who deny the existence of a God, or Gods, homeopathy or - just to confuse Guardian readers - global warming.
It's going to be so much fun with King Charles III, or George VII, or whatever name he ends up using.
Let's assume for arguments sake you're right. Given there are three million muslims in Britain, what's to be done?
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
2) Add a lot more emphasis in our educational system on civics and the benefits of liberal democracy. Also place more emphasis on the scientific method.
3) Don't give out marriage visas unless there has been an existing functioning relationship for two years. This should halt a lot of arranged marriages with the 'home' country, and make them look for spouses here.
4) Bring back the primary purpose rule and raise the income level required to sponsor a spouse.
5) Anyone applying for settlement should be interviewed for evidence of extremist views, and make them swear an oath to supporting Western liberal democratic values to get residency.
6) Stop being afraid to speak out and investigate crimes happening in certain communities because of the need for "sensitivity".
7) A small point, but start talking about "Muslim Britons" rather than "British Muslims", and make clear we expect immigrants coming here to have their foremost allegiance to be to this society.
It was those darn Serbs! If they hadn't stirred up trouble in Bosnia in the early 1900s...
The Serbian government bent over backwards to agree to Austro-Hungary's demands. Austro-Hungary would also have been more conciliatory, but the Germans pushed them to be as hardline as possible.
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
How do you know that today's over-55s did not hold more radical views when they were younger?
The lack of radical protests? The absence of bombings on London transport systems? The non-existence of young Muslims with British passports going off to fight for jihadist groups?
Holding radical views does not mean that you have to act on them. A tiny minority - a minute fraction of one percent - of young Moslems have acted on their views.
This may well be true, SO, but terrorists/would-be terrorists need a sea to swim in - and those with the same radical views provide that sea. Plus there are other undesirable consequences of such views, for instance, trying to silence the Lib Dem candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn and the effective imposition of a sharia blasphemy law on the rest of us.
It seems to me that the emergence of a radical Islamist agenda - roughly contemporary with the arrival of Khomeini in Iran in 1979 and other developments - is one of the factors in the radicalisation of the 2nd/3rd & 4th generations who may well have turned to this as part of a rebellion against their parents and the societies they are living in. Whatever the multiple causes there is undoubtedly a problem with Muslim communities in the West which has not existed - or not to the same extent - with other immigrant (or descended from immigrants) groups and which needs addressing for all our sakes.
How we do that is a difficult question but I am certain that we do ourselves no favours by pretending that Islam and sharia law do not have some very unpleasant aspects to them which are simply incompatible with Western life and values. Kow-towing to the unpleasant bits - out of some misguided "respect" or, more likely, out of fear of a radical element which is more violent and prone to violence than the radicals in other groups - is most definitely not the answer.
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
It was those darn Serbs! If they hadn't stirred up trouble in Bosnia in the early 1900s...
The Serbian government bent over backwards to agree to Austro-Hungary's demands. Austro-Hungary would also have been more conciliatory, but the Germans pushed them to be as hardline as possible.
And if only the Austro-Hungarians hadn't annexed Bosnia in 1908!!
How do you know that today's over-55s did not hold more radical views when they were younger?
The lack of radical protests? The absence of bombings on London transport systems? The non-existence of young Muslims with British passports going off to fight for jihadist groups?
Holding radical views does not mean that you have to act on them. A tiny minority - a minute fraction of one percent - of young Moslems have acted on their views.
This may well be true, SO, but terrorists/would-be terrorists need a sea to swim in - and those with the same radical views provide that sea. Plus there are other undesirable consequences of such views, for instance, trying to silence the Lib Dem candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn and the effective imposition of a sharia blasphemy law on the rest of us.
It seems to me that the emergence of a radical Islamist agenda - roughly contemporary with the arrival of Khomeini in Iran in 1979 and other developments - is one of the factors in the radicalisation of the 2nd/3rd & 4th generations who may well have turned to this as part of a rebellion against their parents and the societies they are living in. Whatever the multiple causes there is undoubtedly a problem with Muslim communities in the West which has not existed - or not to the same extent - with other immigrant (or descended from immigrants) groups and which needs addressing for all our sakes.
How we do that is a difficult question but I am certain that we do ourselves no favours by pretending that Islam and sharia law do not have some very unpleasant aspects to them which are simply incompatible with Western life and values. Kow-towing to the unpleasant bits - out of some misguided "respect" or, more likely, out of fear of a radical element which is more violent and prone to violence than the radicals in other groups - is most definitely not the answer.
Re your final paragraph
The biggest obstacle to this is that it would mean hard line leftists admitting that people to the right of them had a point all along... you only have to read this blog to see how difficult that is. That is probably more of a problem for sorting out differences between immigrants and the existing population than any differences between the two that exist.
There's isn't a single line between Super Pro-British and Evil Terrorist Scum. Intolerance can occur in other ways. We now have a de facto blasphemy law against depicting Mohammed despite the fact that the vast majority aren't Muslims. The intolerant, over-sensitive and threatening response to the Danish cartoons and the cowed, frightened (understandably...) reaction by the media, coupled with the pathetic lack of leadership by politicians, has led to this.
And now we have the insufferably smug Paxman interrogating a cartoonist for having the temerity to be 'offensive' and not obeying a custom of Islam (despite being an atheist). That's deeply unhealthy, both for the good of the country and when it comes to any hope of the state broadcaster actually supporting freedom of speech instead of the intolerant, arrogant creatures who demand that their particular opinions and beliefs be beyond examination, criticism or ridicule.
There was a very good article on this in Saturday's Times by Janice Turner. And, no, don't apologise for going on about it - like you I think freedom of speech is vital, the foundation of our democracy and freedom.
We did not fight for centuries to roll back religious control over our thoughts and speech only to have it reintroduced via the back door because some are too pathetically weak and self-important to be part of robust public discourse.
Plus Mr Nawaz is my Lib-Dem candidate in my constituency and if the Lib-Dems cave in here then we may as well give up considering them liberal in any meaningful way.
If only they were fighting for their candidate and freedom of speech as hard as they have been fighting for Baroness Sally Morgan and her sense of entitlement to an important role....
Let's assume for arguments sake you're right. Given there are three million muslims in Britain, what's to be done?
3) Don't give out marriage visas unless there has been an existing functioning relationship for two years. This should halt a lot of arranged marriages with the 'home' country, and make them look for spouses here.
4) Bring back the primary purpose rule and raise the income level required to sponsor a spouse.
I agree wholeheartedly with you... except my brother's getting married in May to an Indian citizen. He's five years younger than me - but I'm still single because I still have hopes of finding someone here
Alanbrooke said: From memory oil is over 10% of the scottish economy, it's not a bonus it's fundamental. What else are you going to fall back on the successful banking sector ?
Scotland won't have a successful banking sector though. If they go for Sterling then it will be regulated by the BoE and there would be huge pressure to relocate as ultimately the English could not tolerate a foreign power creaing money and derivative positions which English taxpayers were liable for. We see from the Euro that currency union requires transfer union and an England that had just been told to F off would not do that. Edinburgh's current success comes from its position as a branch office of the City
GDP per person excluding OIL is almost the same as UK, so it would just mean we would be back where we are now if giving it out free. Given no matter what happens oil will still be there and will not be cheap it will not mean we should be stupid enough to continue to give 100% of it away as we do now.
On average the UK doesn't pay it's way - go figure.
Only 3 regions do so London, SE and Scotland. Take out oil and Scotland is somewhere around Lancashire. Or put another way the Labour recession killed off nearly 10% of the economy that's what it would be like until some new businesses took over or enough people emigrated.
Yes if it all disappeared we would be borrowing as per now, but it is a very unlikely scenario in the short term regardless of what middle east does. So worst case we would still be better off than we are now even if needing to borrow.
can't see it malc.
1. you can only borrow without constraint if you have your own currency. 2. oil is a wobbler - the second oil peak is based on price not volume and the pricing side is looking shaky as Iran comes back onstream 3. Scotland still has a hit to take as jobs move back down south so it must first replace them before it can think of growth 4. the state sector is too large and needs to be adjusted.
I think you have a decade of adjustment ahead and oil might just be enough to cover the restructuring costs.
Edinburgh's current success in the financial services industry comes from its long-standing fund management industry (from memory it is c. 6/7 globally - below New York, London, Tokyo, Paris, Frankfurt, but in line with Milan and above Stockholm).
Fund management doesn't have the same issues with LoLR that banking does.
As a fund manager, I cannot believe that Edinburgh is ahead of Boston, and I'd be very surprised if it was ahead of Hong Kong, Singapore and Los Angeles (which is dominated by Capital Research, of course).
Boston obviously basically Fidelity. But this is just a memory from a couple of years ago - don't recall exacly what it was measuring (or even whether it was Europe or global!) I do remember being surprised how high up the list it was!
Perhaps it was in Europe - below London, Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich and in line with Milan?
By 2012 they are down at #19 in Europe (vs. #7) and #54 globally (vs #37 in 2011), although to be fair this is down to others improving while Edinburgh remains static.
Let's assume for arguments sake you're right. Given there are three million muslims in Britain, what's to be done?
3) Don't give out marriage visas unless there has been an existing functioning relationship for two years. This should halt a lot of arranged marriages with the 'home' country, and make them look for spouses here.
4) Bring back the primary purpose rule and raise the income level required to sponsor a spouse.
I agree wholeheartedly with you... except my brother's getting married in May to an Indian citizen. He's five years younger than me - but I'm still single because I still have hopes of finding someone here
That's because you're a sensible chap who doesn't see everything through a racial lens. I don't give a damn what people look like, just how they behave.
I'm glad I went to school with many Muslims, incidentally. It helps to remind me that the majority are just like anyone else, and not the foam-flecked lunatics who marched through London demanding that those who insult Islam be beheaded. I sympathise with them when such actions make the religion's adherents appear backward and vile.
I know I keep banging on about this Jesus and Mo thing, but freedom of speech is critically important. The idea that being 'offensive' is sufficient to make something illegal or forbidden (or censored/self-censored out of fear) deeply angers me. The fact we seem to be moving backwards from the 20th/19th century in this regard is very troubling.
Oddly it's the athesist driving the no tolerance agenda rather than religions.
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
@Cyclefree - I absolutely agree with you and I'd go further: our values are intrinsically and absolutely better than those of societies which persecute people for their beliefs, their sex, their sexuality and so on. I don't think we should be shy in saying so. However, we should also have the self-confidence to seek to understand how some young Moslems in western countries have become radicalised and, as important, why. We don't do ourselves any good by letting ourselves completely off the hook. The truth is that for a long time it was not nice being the member of an ethnic minority of whatever religion or skin colour in this country. That does not excuse anything that is happening now or to make terrorist attacks and murders any less evil and revolting, but it might help us do something about preventing them in the future. Religions do not exist in a vacuum - they are what their adherents make them. We had a Christian enlightenment in Europe a few centuries back; we should be seeking to encourage a Moslem one here now.
Is every single thread on here no about immigration?
One possible remedy for the issues discussed below is that schools only receive funding/charitable status if they stick to established fact, not religious superstition/supposition.
This could and should be applied equally to Christian schools as it is to others. There are plenty of churches and temples etc where people can worship their god, without bringing it into schools.
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
Then I think we are broadly in agreement.
I find it abhorrent that tax payer's money can be used to spread sectarian differences, to encourage a particular set of religious beliefs, and - in the case of things like creationism - to pass on falsehoods.
@Cyclefree - I absolutely agree with you and I'd go further: our values are intrinsically and absolutely better than those of societies which persecute people for their beliefs, their sex, their sexuality and so on. I don't think we should be shy in saying so. However, we should also have the self-confidence to seek to understand how some young Moslems in western countries have become radicalised and, as important, why. We don't do ourselves any good by letting ourselves completely off the hook. The truth is that for a long time it was not nice being the member of an ethnic minority of whatever religion or skin colour in this country. That does not excuse anything that is happening now or to make terrorist attacks and murders any less evil and revolting, but it might help us do something about preventing them in the future. Religions do not exist in a vacuum - they are what their adherents make them. We had a Christian enlightenment in Europe a few centuries back; we should be seeking to encourage a Moslem one here now.
Is the Enlightenment a big part of the new history curriculum? It should be front and centre.
It was those darn Serbs! If they hadn't stirred up trouble in Bosnia in the early 1900s...
And if only the Austro-Hungarians hadn't annexed Bosnia in 1908!!
Actually I think you'll find that Austro-Hungarian rule of Bosnia kicked off many years before after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 and was a result of France sticking its bleedin' oar in.
When you look back at the history of Europe over the last thousand years there aren't many catastrophes and wars that weren't, at bottom, caused by the Frogs. Perhaps the only one they could be wholly exonerated of is the Black Death
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
I think you've rather missed the point of liberalism, or else you've invented Liberofascism.
Another coalition spat! The PM encourages a 'rethink' on Lib Dem Home Office Minister Norman Baker's decision to block pubs staying open late for England footie.....I wonder whether this, or the non-re-appointment of the head of Ofsted will get more traction.....
Is every single thread on here no about immigration?
One possible remedy for the issues discussed below is that schools only receive funding/charitable status if they stick to established fact, not religious superstition/supposition.
This could and should be applied equally to Christian schools as it is to others. There are plenty of churches and temples etc where people can worship their god, without bringing it into schools.
It is when certain posters are around.
"Established fact" is tricky territory. No such thing, strictly speaking.
I think religion should absolutely taught in schools, but there should be no religious schools. Though to be honest, I'm not that fussed, I don't think it has a big impact either way.
Your restraint here has been admirable. Genuinely, well done.
It was those darn Serbs! If they hadn't stirred up trouble in Bosnia in the early 1900s...
And if only the Austro-Hungarians hadn't annexed Bosnia in 1908!!
Actually I think you'll find that Austro-Hungarian rule of Bosnia kicked off many years before after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 and was a result of France sticking its bleedin' oar in.
When you look back at the history of Europe over the last thousand years there aren't many catastrophes and wars that weren't, at bottom, caused by the Frogs. Perhaps the only one they could be wholly exonerated of is the Black Death
Avast, Mr Llama, but the actual Austrian annexation was in 1908. Bit like Blighty only annexing Cyprus in 1914, when it was also under effective control since 1878.
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
I think you've rather missed the point of liberalism, or else you've invented Liberofascism.
It was those darn Serbs! If they hadn't stirred up trouble in Bosnia in the early 1900s...
And if only the Austro-Hungarians hadn't annexed Bosnia in 1908!!
Actually I think you'll find that Austro-Hungarian rule of Bosnia kicked off many years before after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 and was a result of France sticking its bleedin' oar in.
When you look back at the history of Europe over the last thousand years there aren't many catastrophes and wars that weren't, at bottom, caused by the Frogs. Perhaps the only one they could be wholly exonerated of is the Black Death
I thought the russkis kicked the Bosnia crisis off by encouraging the Austrians to take it in exchange for some other things they wanted ? Then half way through they changed their position.
Is every single thread on here no about immigration?
One possible remedy for the issues discussed below is that schools only receive funding/charitable status if they stick to established fact, not religious superstition/supposition.
This could and should be applied equally to Christian schools as it is to others. There are plenty of churches and temples etc where people can worship their god, without bringing it into schools.
"Established fact" is tricky territory. No such thing, strictly speaking.
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
I think you've rather missed the point of liberalism, or else you've invented Liberofascism.
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
I think you've rather missed the point of liberalism, or else you've invented Liberofascism.
You're not making any sense. It's illiberal to require public education to teach established facts?
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
I think you've rather missed the point of liberalism, or else you've invented Liberofascism.
You're not making any sense. It's illiberal to require public education to teach established facts?
Loads of "facts" haven't been established yet they're still taught.
Is every single thread on here no about immigration?
One possible remedy for the issues discussed below is that schools only receive funding/charitable status if they stick to established fact, not religious superstition/supposition.
This could and should be applied equally to Christian schools as it is to others. There are plenty of churches and temples etc where people can worship their god, without bringing it into schools.
To be honest, all I asked was, given that 1 in 9 schools have majority of students with out English as their first language, how long would it be before 25% of the population had a language other than English as their first language
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
I think you've rather missed the point of liberalism, or else you've invented Liberofascism.
You're not making any sense. It's illiberal to require public education to teach established facts?
Loads of "facts" have been established yet they're still taught.
I've read your sentence three times and still don't get your point.
''Younger Muslims are more likely to have anti-Western and radical views than the generation that came here in the 1950s''
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
As a side note, the report suggests some of the rise may be down to a rise in wealth, poor immigrants having less time to get into religion etc.
Sorry, haven't had time to read the rest of the thread, but is it really that young people are getting more radical? Or is it just that people become more accepting of non-Sharia law as they get older? That doesn't change the fact that 37% of that age group said that, of course.
1) End religiously segregated schools and make sure Muslims kids are taught alongside non-Muslim ones.
Presumably you'd want to do the same with Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. schools
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
I'm not sure there are any atheist schools, but yes, I believe the same should be done with Jewish and Catholic schools. If creationism is being taught, via taxpayers money, as anything other than a silly religious fable, that should absolutely be stopped.
I think you've rather missed the point of liberalism, or else you've invented Liberofascism.
You're not making any sense. It's illiberal to require public education to teach established facts?
Loads of "facts" have been established yet they're still taught.
I've read your sentence three times and still don't get your point.
It was those darn Serbs! If they hadn't stirred up trouble in Bosnia in the early 1900s...
And if only the Austro-Hungarians hadn't annexed Bosnia in 1908!!
Actually I think you'll find that Austro-Hungarian rule of Bosnia kicked off many years before after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 and was a result of France sticking its bleedin' oar in.
When you look back at the history of Europe over the last thousand years there aren't many catastrophes and wars that weren't, at bottom, caused by the Frogs. Perhaps the only one they could be wholly exonerated of is the Black Death
I thought the russkis kicked the Bosnia crisis off by encouraging the Austrians to take it in exchange for some other things they wanted ? Then half way through they changed their position.
On 5 October the Emperor Franz Joseph announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and ordered to the Minister of Finance to make a new constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The annexation was announced in Sarajevo two days later, on 7 October. This annexation led to the international crisis, which was solved on 26 February 1909 when the Ottoman Empire recognised the annexation when it received material compensation and when the Austrian-Hungarian garrisons left the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. By this, Bosnia and Herzegovina was formally under the Austrian-Hungarian sovereignty. On 21 March 1909, the German Empire sent an ultimatum to the Russian Empire to recognise the annexation, which Russia did immediately. Soon, the Kingdom of Serbia recognised the annexation on 31 March and the Kingdom of Montenegro did so on 5 April.[31]
It was those darn Serbs! If they hadn't stirred up trouble in Bosnia in the early 1900s...
And if only the Austro-Hungarians hadn't annexed Bosnia in 1908!!
Actually I think you'll find that Austro-Hungarian rule of Bosnia kicked off many years before after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 and was a result of France sticking its bleedin' oar in.
When you look back at the history of Europe over the last thousand years there aren't many catastrophes and wars that weren't, at bottom, caused by the Frogs. Perhaps the only one they could be wholly exonerated of is the Black Death
I thought the russkis kicked the Bosnia crisis off by encouraging the Austrians to take it in exchange for some other things they wanted ? Then half way through they changed their position.
On 5 October the Emperor Franz Joseph announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and ordered to the Minister of Finance to make a news constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The annexation was announced in Sarajevo two days later, on 7 October. This annexation led to the international crisis, which was solved on 26 February 1909 when the Ottoman Empire recognised the annexation when it received material compensation and when the Austrian-Hungarian garrisons left the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. By this, Bosnia and Herzegovina was formally under the Austrian-Hungarian sovereignty. On 21 March 1909, the German Empire sent an ultimatum to the Russian Empire to recognise the annexation, which Russia did immediately. Soon, the Kingdom of Serbia recognised the annexation on 31 March and the Kingdom of Montenegro did so on 5 April.[31]
On 2 July 1908, Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky wrote to Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Alois Aehrenthal and proposed a discussion of reciprocal changes to the 1878 Treaty of Berlin in favour of the Russian interest in the Straits of Constantinople and Austro-Hungarian interests in the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Sanjak of Novibazar.
Another coalition spat! The PM encourages a 'rethink' on Lib Dem Home Office Minister Norman Baker's decision to block pubs staying open late for England footie.....I wonder whether this, or the non-re-appointment of the head of Ofsted will get more traction.....
Are the LDs against people having fun or the competitive nature of this soccer sport ?
Another coalition spat! The PM encourages a 'rethink' on Lib Dem Home Office Minister Norman Baker's decision to block pubs staying open late for England footie.....I wonder whether this, or the non-re-appointment of the head of Ofsted will get more traction.....
Are the LDs against people having fun or the competitive nature of this soccer sport ?
Another coalition spat! The PM encourages a 'rethink' on Lib Dem Home Office Minister Norman Baker's decision to block pubs staying open late for England footie.....I wonder whether this, or the non-re-appointment of the head of Ofsted will get more traction.....
Are the LDs against people having fun or the competitive nature of this soccer sport ?
having fun offends the santimonious english middle classes.
Another coalition spat! The PM encourages a 'rethink' on Lib Dem Home Office Minister Norman Baker's decision to block pubs staying open late for England footie.....I wonder whether this, or the non-re-appointment of the head of Ofsted will get more traction.....
Are the LDs against people having fun or the competitive nature of this soccer sport ?
having fun offends the santimonious english middle classes.
Now let's be fair to the LibDems, for once. Did Lembit not have fun?
It was those darn Serbs! If they hadn't stirred up trouble in Bosnia in the early 1900s...
And if only the Austro-Hungarians hadn't annexed Bosnia in 1908!!
Actually I think you'll find that Austro-Hungarian rule of Bosnia kicked off many years before after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 and was a result of France sticking its bleedin' oar in.
When you look back at the history of Europe over the last thousand years there aren't many catastrophes and wars that weren't, at bottom, caused by the Frogs. Perhaps the only one they could be wholly exonerated of is the Black Death
I thought the russkis kicked the Bosnia crisis off by encouraging the Austrians to take it in exchange for some other things they wanted ? Then half way through they changed their position.
On 5 October the Emperor Franz Joseph announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and ordered to the Minister of Finance to make a news constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The annexation was announced in Sarajevo two days later, on 7 October. This annexation led to the international crisis, which was solved on 26 February 1909 when the Ottoman Empire recognised the annexation when it received material compensation and when the Austrian-Hungarian garrisons left the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. By this, Bosnia and Herzegovina was formally under the Austrian-Hungarian sovereignty. On 21 March 1909, the German Empire sent an ultimatum to the Russian Empire to recognise the annexation, which Russia did immediately. Soon, the Kingdom of Serbia recognised the annexation on 31 March and the Kingdom of Montenegro did so on 5 April.[31]
On 2 July 1908, Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky wrote to Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Alois Aehrenthal and proposed a discussion of reciprocal changes to the 1878 Treaty of Berlin in favour of the Russian interest in the Straits of Constantinople and Austro-Hungarian interests in the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Sanjak of Novibazar.
Is every single thread on here no about immigration?
One possible remedy for the issues discussed below is that schools only receive funding/charitable status if they stick to established fact, not religious superstition/supposition.
This could and should be applied equally to Christian schools as it is to others. There are plenty of churches and temples etc where people can worship their god, without bringing it into schools.
The problem you have is that a bunch of the CofE schools provide a necessary service and would need to be replaced if the state stops funding them - they would either close, or charge fees. Man7y of them are on church curtilage so difficult for the state to buy the current operations
Another coalition spat! The PM encourages a 'rethink' on Lib Dem Home Office Minister Norman Baker's decision to block pubs staying open late for England footie.....I wonder whether this, or the non-re-appointment of the head of Ofsted will get more traction.....
Are the LDs against people having fun or the competitive nature of this soccer sport ?
having fun offends the santimonious english middle classes.
Now let's be fair to the LibDems, for once. Did Lembit not have fun?
he's not english Richard. Celtic fringe LDs are allowed to have fun - see Lloyd George, Charlie Kennedy.
Comments
Of course, when they first arrived in the 19th century the Jews did not integrate. They congregated and were viewed with extreme suspicion by the local population and the powers that be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_Act_1905
I must admit I was very shocked to learn that in the early noughties Scotland Yard + the met was essentially an open book to organised criminals. Scores of officers were apparently corrupt.
Then again, it was during Ian Blair's utterly disastrous tenure, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
PS. Ask your wife if the Muslim kids would be just as likely to invite non-Muslims to their house as Muslims.
Are most teachers in Tower Hamlets able to speak Urdu do you think? Or Bengali, excuse my ignorance
http://data.london.gov.uk/datastorefiles/documents/2011-census-snapshot-main-language.pdf
Gargantuan generalisation of the worst kind.
Almost every day of my life in central London I see young muslim women wearing a headscarf that is almost laughably accompanied by the accoutrements of their non-muslim counterparts. Tight leggings, high heels, make-up, nail polish etc.
It's my modesty, innit.
Integration is a two way street. If posters on this board are right, the large-scale arrival of immigrants into an area causes the previous population to up sticks and leave. Given that, with the best will in the world it's difficult to see how people can integrate. It certainly does seem that some younger muslims are more radical - or perhaps, more accurately, more visibly and vocally radical - than their parents and grandparents were. I tend to think that there are a number of reasons for this, not all of which reflect well on our parents and grandparents.
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.
I'm afraid I'm going to take polling evidence over your subjective judgment of women's leggings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html
Chicken and the egg maybe, but I would say its the large scale that causes the lack of integration
Let's assume for arguments sake you're right. Given there are three million muslims in Britain, what's to be done?
What a great 4th innings by Pakistan !
THE innings of the decade thus far for me.
I don't condone radicalisation, I am merely seeking to explain it. And I think it is undeniable that a lot of Asian immigrants in the 60s, 70s and 80s were given a very hard time by local populations in terms of physical attacks and ostracisation. That Hindus did not and have not reacted in the same way as some Moslems is hugely to their credit, I agree.
BENT!
The adverts for local businesses are great, its like what Id imagine Cable tv in America to be like. Would love there to be local tv round my way, I think it must be great for community
Read the thread.
Personally I don;t think there's a problem at all. Its Socrates who keeps highlighting this matter.
Will I have to support Stevie G and the boys when they play at Wembley ?
I suppose the Premier League is probably as close to financially unbent (Excluding the whole fit and proper owners discussion - which this isn't about...) as you can get with the large financial rewards for winning, as the prize money gets lower so bent bookies/syndicates potential offerings are higher as a ratio.
But then again as prize money goes up so the probability of Performance Enhancing Drug usage must probably go up too...
And now we have the insufferably smug Paxman interrogating a cartoonist for having the temerity to be 'offensive' and not obeying a custom of Islam (despite being an atheist). That's deeply unhealthy, both for the good of the country and when it comes to any hope of the state broadcaster actually supporting freedom of speech instead of the intolerant, arrogant creatures who demand that their particular opinions and beliefs be beyond examination, criticism or ridicule.
As people leave the narrow confines of school and go on to university or into the world of work, they become increasingly integrated. Looking through my Facebook feed, I have perhaps 10 friends of Asian Muslim descent from my time there - of which I suspect exactly none of their kids speak Urdu as a first language. Now, there may be some element of selection bias, and Bedford is not Bradford, but my direct experience is of increased integration as people get older, and of second and third generation immigrants being more integrated than their parents.
I am as disturbed as Socrates as the idea of Sharia Law in the UK. That said, I don't think the majority of self-described Muslims in their late teens or early 20s even go to Mosque. Few have genuinely thought about what Sharia law might actually mean.
While I know this is all anecdote, the Muslim kids of 18-25 that I know tend to eschew Pork (because they're Muslim), but to be quite - how to say it - *familiar* with alcohol. If they say 'yes' to Sharia, it is as likely because they associate it with kosher. Of course, this doesn't go that way to explain all the survey's findings, but it is rather interesting.
I know I keep banging on about this Jesus and Mo thing, but freedom of speech is critically important. The idea that being 'offensive' is sufficient to make something illegal or forbidden (or censored/self-censored out of fear) deeply angers me. The fact we seem to be moving backwards from the 20th/19th century in this regard is very troubling.
This explains why the ever so level-headed Prince of Wales has stated that it is his desire to become "Defender of the Faiths" and so unite the religious of this land in a Holy Crusade against those who deny the existence of a God, or Gods, homeopathy or - just to confuse Guardian readers - global warming.
It's going to be so much fun with King Charles III, or George VII, or whatever name he ends up using.
2) Add a lot more emphasis in our educational system on civics and the benefits of liberal democracy. Also place more emphasis on the scientific method.
3) Don't give out marriage visas unless there has been an existing functioning relationship for two years. This should halt a lot of arranged marriages with the 'home' country, and make them look for spouses here.
4) Bring back the primary purpose rule and raise the income level required to sponsor a spouse.
5) Anyone applying for settlement should be interviewed for evidence of extremist views, and make them swear an oath to supporting Western liberal democratic values to get residency.
6) Stop being afraid to speak out and investigate crimes happening in certain communities because of the need for "sensitivity".
7) A small point, but start talking about "Muslim Britons" rather than "British Muslims", and make clear we expect immigrants coming here to have their foremost allegiance to be to this society.
As a sidenote Socrates, I believe the Telegraph's figures are slightly wrong. The actual figure for 16-24 was 37%.
On the question "I feel I have as much in common with non-muslims as muslims" 66% agreed, 29% disagreed. (The agreement rises as you go up in age).
Full report is here.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/living apart together - jan 07.pdf
As a side note, the report suggests some of the rise may be down to a rise in wealth, poor immigrants having less time to get into religion etc.
It seems to me that the emergence of a radical Islamist agenda - roughly contemporary with the arrival of Khomeini in Iran in 1979 and other developments - is one of the factors in the radicalisation of the 2nd/3rd & 4th generations who may well have turned to this as part of a rebellion against their parents and the societies they are living in. Whatever the multiple causes there is undoubtedly a problem with Muslim communities in the West which has not existed - or not to the same extent - with other immigrant (or descended from immigrants) groups and which needs addressing for all our sakes.
How we do that is a difficult question but I am certain that we do ourselves no favours by pretending that Islam and sharia law do not have some very unpleasant aspects to them which are simply incompatible with Western life and values. Kow-towing to the unpleasant bits - out of some misguided "respect" or, more likely, out of fear of a radical element which is more violent and prone to violence than the radicals in other groups - is most definitely not the answer.
And given your comments on the scientific method, I assume you'd want to shut down the Vardy Academies which (allegedly) teach creationism as fact. (I say allegedly, because there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, although I'm minded to trust Rod Liddle.)
The biggest obstacle to this is that it would mean hard line leftists admitting that people to the right of them had a point all along... you only have to read this blog to see how difficult that is. That is probably more of a problem for sorting out differences between immigrants and the existing population than any differences between the two that exist.
We did not fight for centuries to roll back religious control over our thoughts and speech only to have it reintroduced via the back door because some are too pathetically weak and self-important to be part of robust public discourse.
Plus Mr Nawaz is my Lib-Dem candidate in my constituency and if the Lib-Dems cave in here then we may as well give up considering them liberal in any meaningful way.
If only they were fighting for their candidate and freedom of speech as hard as they have been fighting for Baroness Sally Morgan and her sense of entitlement to an important role....
1. you can only borrow without constraint if you have your own currency.
2. oil is a wobbler - the second oil peak is based on price not volume and the pricing side is looking shaky as Iran comes back onstream
3. Scotland still has a hit to take as jobs move back down south so it must first replace them before it can think of growth
4. the state sector is too large and needs to be adjusted.
I think you have a decade of adjustment ahead and oil might just be enough to cover the restructuring costs.
London: 1
Jersey: 28
Guernsey: 31
Isle of Man: 43
Glasgow: 50
Edinburgh: 54
Dublin: 56
One possible remedy for the issues discussed below is that schools only receive funding/charitable status if they stick to established fact, not religious superstition/supposition.
This could and should be applied equally to Christian schools as it is to others. There are plenty of churches and temples etc where people can worship their god, without bringing it into schools.
I find it abhorrent that tax payer's money can be used to spread sectarian differences, to encourage a particular set of religious beliefs, and - in the case of things like creationism - to pass on falsehoods.
When you look back at the history of Europe over the last thousand years there aren't many catastrophes and wars that weren't, at bottom, caused by the Frogs. Perhaps the only one they could be wholly exonerated of is the Black Death
Its 21% in London
41% in Newham
http://data.london.gov.uk/datastorefiles/documents/2011-census-snapshot-main-language.pdf
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/02/we-need-restrictions-on-non-resident-purchases-of-uk-homes/
Wonder when Ed will champion.....?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_rule_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
On 2 July 1908, Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky wrote to Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Alois Aehrenthal and proposed a discussion of reciprocal changes to the 1878 Treaty of Berlin in favour of the Russian interest in the Straits of Constantinople and Austro-Hungarian interests in the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Sanjak of Novibazar.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/school-pupils-brand-snp-mp-gimp-on-twitter-1-3292348
Actually it's a different article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_crisis but yes you are correct.