isam isn't banned at the moment - he's commented twice on this thread. I think his position is easier to understand than cyclefree's. isam thinks (if he'll allow me to paraphrase, I hope fairly) that it's unrealistic and indeed unreasonable to expect everyone who settles here to adopt a particular set of attitudes, so he's in favour of strict limits on numbers, so that although new arrivals might have very different ideas, they wouldn't be numerous enough for it to matter. We don't in reality have unrestricted immigration, so the issue comes down to numbers, and reasonable people can take different views on how many might change our culture too quickly.
cyclefree feels that our key values are immutable and very important to defend. I agree with the latter for many of our values (like David I'm cautious about the former). But I don't think it lends itself to Government action, and I don't understand how we would otherwise enforce a policy that people who don't like our values need to leave.
I was denounced as a racist couple of years ago on here, for simply saying I felt very threatened in Whitechapel and Luton as a white female wearing a sleeveless summer dress.
I won't name the posters who did so. Perhaps they recall commenting and won't repeat their behaviour
Just look at the society they have created for us.
Created and now calling names of anybody who dare to question it.
It is perfectly natural for people with things in common to want to live side by side, Luton and Bradford are good examples. However that rule doesn't apply when white, loosely Christian, British people choose to live and work amongst themselves.
isam isn't banned at the moment - he's commented twice on this thread. I think his position is easier to understand than cyclefree's. isam thinks (if he'll allow me to paraphrase, I hope fairly) that it's unrealistic and indeed unreasonable to expect everyone who settles here to adopt a particular set of attitudes, so he's in favour of strict limits on numbers, so that although new arrivals might have very different ideas, they wouldn't be numerous enough for it to matter. We don't in reality have unrestricted immigration, so the issue comes down to numbers, and reasonable people can take different views on how many might change our culture too quickly.
cyclefree feels that our key values are immutable and very important to defend. I agree with the latter for many of our values (like David I'm cautious about the former). But I don't think it lends itself to Government action, and I don't understand how we would otherwise enforce a policy that people who don't like our values need to leave.
*emerges from PB Tory bunker* He posted twice, then was banned. Saw his avatar change. Would be nice to know so we know what to avoid saying so we can avoid being banned.
Surely 'Britishness' isn't an abstract idea but an snapshot of the views of the population? What people refer to as British values are what Britain was 50 years ago. A significant proportion of British values today are Islamic, whether the rest of the population like it or not... If Islam became the majority religion in Britain in 50 years or so, British values would be sharia law etc
I disagree profoundly with this. The idea of Britain and of British values outlast and to a certain extent are independent of the people within the territory at any one particular moment. Your view is a rather passive one - and I don't mean this as a criticism of you - that says that because some people come here with different views we are obliged to accept those views. I thik British culture and history and tradition and values are matters which we pass on, we build on. We have a duty to do so. Of course it adapts and changes but there are some core values which need to endure, which we must ensure do endure.
I am a Gaullist in this. Just as he had "une certaine idee de la France" I have a certain idea of Britain which I think is of great value and which I am not willing to see ruined or defeated by worse ideas.
I do think that the concept of "Britishness" is a moveable feast and that is a good thing in many ways. I remember, about the age of 10, going to see the Black and White Minstrels in Southampton at the instance of my parents who had been keen. Afterwards we all looked at each other and thought, nah, that's not right. Even when I started work 30 years ago homosexuals were persecuted and blackmailed with threats of criminal charges for consensual acts. When my mother got married in 1960 she had to leave the Bank because they did not think it appropriate to employ married women.
These have all changed massively in our lifetime and, in my view at least, they have all changed very much for the better. I think we are lucky enough to live in an extremely socially liberal society today and I would do all I can to support and maintain those values. But the idea that at any one time there is a view of Britishness which is independent of the people who live here at the time troubles me.
But when values do change, it should be the result of organic consensus building, not imposition or takeover (and to those who say, 'but you want to impose your values on immigrants', I'd say 'to an extent, yes, but then that's part of the conditions of coming in the first place').
Surely 'Britishness' isn't an abstract idea but an snapshot of the views of the population? What people refer to as British values are what Britain was 50 years ago. A significant proportion of British values today are Islamic, whether the rest of the population like it or not... If Islam became the majority religion in Britain in 50 years or so, British values would be sharia law etc
I disagree profoundly with this. The idea of Britain and of British values outlast and to a certain extent are independent of the people within the territory at any one particular moment. Your view is a rather passive one - and I don't mean this as a criticism of you - that says that because some people come here with different views we are obliged to accept those views. I thik British culture and history and tradition and values are matters which we pass on, we build on. We have a duty to do so. Of course it adapts and changes but there are some core values which need to endure, which we must ensure do endure.
I am a Gaullist in this. Just as he had "une certaine idee de la France" I have a certain idea of Britain which I think is of great value and which I am not willing to see ruined or defeated by worse ideas.
I do think that the concept of "Britishness" is a moveable feast and that is a good thing in many ways. I remember, about the age of 10, going to see the Black and White Minstrels in Southampton at the instance of my parents who had been keen. Afterwards we all looked at each other and thought, nah, that's not right. Even when I started work 30 years ago homosexuals were persecuted and blackmailed with threats of criminal charges for consensual acts. When my mother got married in 1960 she had to leave the Bank because they did not think it appropriate to employ married women.
These have all changed massively in our lifetime and, in my view at least, they have all changed very much for the better. I think we are lucky enough to live in an extremely socially liberal society today and I would do all I can to support and maintain those values. But the idea that at any one time there is a view of Britishness which is independent of the people who live here at the time troubles me.
But when values do change, it should be the result of organic consensus building, not imposition or takeover (and to those who say, 'but you want to impose your values on immigrants', I'd say 'to an extent, yes, but then that's part of the conditions of coming in the first place').
Corbyn supporters are being encouraged to lodge official complaints about Labour moderates to party general secretary Iain McNicol. This is the template doing the rounds in Corbynista circles of a letter that has already been filed to Labour HQ, dobbing in Simon Danczuk, Frank Field and Emily Benn:
I was denounced as a racist couple of years ago on here, for simply saying I felt very threatened in Whitechapel and Luton as a white female wearing a sleeveless summer dress.
I won't name the posters who did so. Perhaps they recall commenting and won't repeat their behaviour
Just look at the society they have created for us.
Created and now calling names of anybody who dare to question it.
It is perfectly natural for people with things in common to want to live side by side, Luton and Bradford are good examples. However that rule doesn't apply when white, loosely Christian, British people choose to live and work amongst themselves.
On Saturday somebody said I wanted to kill all Jews.
Local BBC reports that schools had observed minute's silence for Paris. I'm not comfortable with this form of virtue signalling. If we prize freedoms of thought, belief and speech should we be trying to compel children to do this?
Corbyn supporters are being encouraged to lodge official complaints about Labour moderates to party general secretary Iain McNicol. This is the template doing the rounds in Corbynista circles of a letter that has already been filed to Labour HQ, dobbing in Simon Danczuk, Frank Field and Emily Benn:
Well said David Herdson, I don't want to impose anything on anybody in the same way I don't want visitors here telling me to respect them, that has to be earned. I know and like people of different faiths and cultures but I refuse to be dictated to.
I was denounced as a racist couple of years ago on here, for simply saying I felt very threatened in Whitechapel and Luton as a white female wearing a sleeveless summer dress.
I won't name the posters who did so. Perhaps they recall commenting and won't repeat their behaviour
Just look at the society they have created for us.
Created and now calling names of anybody who dare to question it.
It is perfectly natural for people with things in common to want to live side by side, Luton and Bradford are good examples. However that rule doesn't apply when white, loosely Christian, British people choose to live and work amongst themselves.
I commented about a couple of comments about Whitechapel (I can't remember if yours was one). However I doubt I insinuated you were a racist because of it.
I see that the barriers on national borders are now going up throughout the EU. Is this the end of schengen?
If it is its the end of EU. Where are the supporters of open borders and free movement now?
Sorry, I don't think that's right. The EU will not end because of temporary change to Schengen, even if that actually comes to pass once the dust has settled. We're not in Schengen and have been in the EU for decades.
The contributors on here all weekend have lacked the usual left/liberal mob, are they beginning to accept that they were wrong (doubt it) or are they regrouping?
Corbyn supporters are being encouraged to lodge official complaints about Labour moderates to party general secretary Iain McNicol. This is the template doing the rounds in Corbynista circles of a letter that has already been filed to Labour HQ, dobbing in Simon Danczuk, Frank Field and Emily Benn:
I was denounced as a racist couple of years ago on here, for simply saying I felt very threatened in Whitechapel and Luton as a white female wearing a sleeveless summer dress.
I won't name the posters who did so. Perhaps they recall commenting and won't repeat their behaviour
Just look at the society they have created for us.
Created and now calling names of anybody who dare to question it.
It is perfectly natural for people with things in common to want to live side by side, Luton and Bradford are good examples. However that rule doesn't apply when white, loosely Christian, British people choose to live and work amongst themselves.
I commented about a couple of comments about Whitechapel (I can't remember if yours was one). However I doubt I insinuated you were a racist because of it.
Part of the difficulty of defining 'Britishness' is: Britishness as opposed to what? Most of the core values of our society - equality before the law, tolerance, religious freedom, free speech, an obligation to look after the most vulnerable, and so on - are not specifically British, but are core values of all relatively wealthy, post-Christian, post-Enlightenment, Western societies.
The term 'Britishness' makes more sense in contrast to 'Frenchness' or 'American-ness' or 'Danishness'. And that, I would say, is more a difference of style, modes of speech, and approach to problem-solving than one of fundamental values.
Nigel Farage will be speaking this evening about the situation in Paris. I'd say this is a good opportunity to appear statesmanlike and appeal to a wide, concerned audience. Corbyn is floundering, heaven knows where Farron is.
The moderation on PB is run by volunteers who enable us to have the types of discussion that we have. Any poster who seeks to undermine a member of the team will be banned.
I'm not getting into a discussion about why any post has been deleted or poster banned. This is my site and I run it how I wish.
If you have commented on moderation on this thread then I suggest that you delete your comments immediately.
Part of the difficulty of defining 'Britishness' is: Britishness as opposed to what? Most of the core values of our society - equality before the law, tolerance, religious freedom, free speech, an obligation to look after the most vulnerable, and so on - are not specifically British, but are core values of all relatively wealthy, post-Christian, post-Enlightenment, Western societies.
The term 'Britishness' makes more sense in contrast to 'Frenchness' or 'American-ness' or 'Danishness'. And that, I would say, is more a difference of style, modes of speech, and approach to problem-solving than one of fundamental values.
Defining Britishness is a bit like the duck test. It's difficult to describe but you know it when you see it.
But being British, or any other nationality, isn't something that can be learned in a textbook, it didn't come about through planning and diktat but through a free market within a fixed number of people...
Not sure I follow. "a free market within a fixed number of people"?
Well you have a certain, limited amount of people and let them do what they like
Britishness was, as Dair would tell you, a very carefully constructed concept.
Scotland at the beginning of the 18th century had some resemblances to a failed state in the modern middle east. It was bankrupt, riven by religious conflict and was dominated outside its few big cities by tribal groupings that were impenetrable to the outsider. It was eventually absorbed very successfully into the British state, but the process wasn't a smooth or quick one. It took generations.
Nigel Farage will be speaking this evening about the situation in Paris. I'd say this is a good opportunity to appear statesmanlike and appeal to a wide, concerned audience. Corbyn is floundering, heaven knows where Farron is.
I agree that it would be an opportunity for him to do that. Past form would suggest he's unlikely to take it.
It looks like Putin is coming in from the cold. Rapidly. BBC news showed Putin and Cameron in discussion and Obama and Putin literally head to head as they whisper in each others ears.
It looks like Putin is coming in from the cold. Rapidly. BBC news showed Putin and Cameron in discussion and Obama and Putin literally head to head as they whisper in each others ears.
Will it make a difference? Who knows?
It depends if they can convince Putin to unleash hell on ISIS, rather than taking pot shots at the other rabble groups. Unlike Cameron or Obama, he doesn't really have to worry about the electoral impact of any decision.
Funny how PB Tories think the current ISIS problem is all Jezzas fault.
The primary reason for ISIS existing IMO is the slaughter of Muslims in wars such as Iraq.
Remind me which side were you on in those decisions.
I was on the same as Jezza.
I think a certain Ken Clarke said at the time you will create thousands of OBL's with the pursuit of this war. He was right.
No one thinks ISIS is Corbyn's fault. Like almost every other topic he is not relevant to their success or failure.
All it demonstrates is the poor judgments he has made in the past; the sort of people he wanted to associate with and support; his basic stupidity in giving these sort of people credence on the basis that if they were anti-American or anti-British they were probably right about other things as well; the futility of his basically pacifist stand when faced with such murderous villains and the problems his party has caused with multiculturalism, uncontrolled immigration from alien cultures and its tolerance of behaviour and attitudes incompatible with our core values for electoral advantage.
That's all.
I disagree David, Scott and his ilk seem to lay the ills of the world at Corbyn's feet , very tedious indeed.
Nigel Farage will be speaking this evening about the situation in Paris. I'd say this is a good opportunity to appear statesmanlike and appeal to a wide, concerned audience. Corbyn is floundering, heaven knows where Farron is.
I agree that it would be an opportunity for him to do that. Past form would suggest he's unlikely to take it.
You won't be surprised that I disagree. Many of his points in the past have caused discomfort but have been proven correct.
I don't want "I told you so" from Nigel, just a clear and coherent message of where we are and how we should react, I don't see that coming from anywhere else.
The moderation on PB is run by volunteers who enable us to have the types of discussion that we have. Any poster who seeks to undermine a member of the team will be banned.
I'm not getting into a discussion about why any post has been deleted or poster banned. This is my site and I run it how I wish.
If you have commented on moderation on this thread then I suggest that you delete your comments immediately.
DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?
No; not really. It appears to be a bit of a rant.
If you cannot engage with adults - however childish they choose to behave then, maybe, it is time to pass-over-the-riegns? That said: We should never question moderation...!
isam isn't banned at the moment - he's commented twice on this thread. I think his position is easier to understand than cyclefree's. isam thinks (if he'll allow me to paraphrase, I hope fairly) that it's unrealistic and indeed unreasonable to expect everyone who settles here to adopt a particular set of attitudes, so he's in favour of strict limits on numbers, so that although new arrivals might have very different ideas, they wouldn't be numerous enough for it to matter. We don't in reality have unrestricted immigration, so the issue comes down to numbers, and reasonable people can take different views on how many might change our culture too quickly.
cyclefree feels that our key values are immutable and very important to defend. I agree with the latter for many of our values (like David I'm cautious about the former). But I don't think it lends itself to Government action, and I don't understand how we would otherwise enforce a policy that people who don't like our values need to leave.
*emerges from PB Tory bunker* He posted twice, then was banned. Saw his avatar change. Would be nice to know so we know what to avoid saying so we can avoid being banned.
I agree. I think it's a great shame that posters are being banned for no apparent reason (or, at least, reasons that are by no means obvious to the casual observer).
It looks like Putin is coming in from the cold. Rapidly. BBC news showed Putin and Cameron in discussion and Obama and Putin literally head to head as they whisper in each others ears.
Will it make a difference? Who knows?
It depends if they can convince Putin to unleash hell on ISIS, rather than taking pot shots at the other rabble groups. Unlike Cameron or Obama, he doesn't really have to worry about the electoral impact of any decision.
Mr Urquhart, I can't help thinking they're persuading Putin to not unleash hell for fear of repercussions. After the plane in Sinai I bet Putin is itching to get going
If you have commented on moderation on this thread then I suggest that you delete your comments immediately.
Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't:
There's only a five minute window on editing posts, so unfortunately the mods will have to purge the thread if necessary. I don't think that asking why an action was taken undermines the moderators, but what do I know?
The moderation on PB is run by volunteers who enable us to have the types of discussion that we have. Any poster who seeks to undermine a member of the team will be banned.
I'm not getting into a discussion about why any post has been deleted or poster banned. This is my site and I run it how I wish.
If you have commented on moderation on this thread then I suggest that you delete your comments immediately.
DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?
No; not really. It appears to be a bit of a rant.
If you cannot engage with adults - however childish they choose to behave then, maybe, it is time to pass-over-the-riegns? That said: We should never question moderation...!
Corbyn supporters are being encouraged to lodge official complaints about Labour moderates to party general secretary Iain McNicol. This is the template doing the rounds in Corbynista circles of a letter that has already been filed to Labour HQ, dobbing in Simon Danczuk, Frank Field and Emily Benn:
Another reminder of the naivety of those who supported Corbyn in the belief he could lead Labour in reaching out to those who don't take part in the political process - what he has actually achieved is turning the Labour Party into an inward-looking faction-ridden organisation in which members spend more time attacking other members than other parties.
Mr. K, ha, I'm writing about that now. Might have a sergeant refuse plate armour on the basis it makes him look important enough to have gold jewellery and make him a target.
I see that the barriers on national borders are now going up throughout the EU. Is this the end of schengen?
If it is its the end of EU. Where are the supporters of open borders and free movement now?
The UK and Ireland have been in the EU since 1973 without the need to join Schengen. I wouldn't be surprised if Eurocrats thought the solution was more policing powers for the centre, which follows as naturally for Schengen as the ECB does for the Eurozone.
isam isn't banned at the moment - he's commented twice on this thread. I think his position is easier to understand than cyclefree's. isam thinks (if he'll allow me to paraphrase, I hope fairly) that it's unrealistic and indeed unreasonable to expect everyone who settles here to adopt a particular set of attitudes, so he's in favour of strict limits on numbers, so that although new arrivals might have very different ideas, they wouldn't be numerous enough for it to matter. We don't in reality have unrestricted immigration, so the issue comes down to numbers, and reasonable people can take different views on how many might change our culture too quickly.
cyclefree feels that our key values are immutable and very important to defend. I agree with the latter for many of our values (like David I'm cautious about the former). But I don't think it lends itself to Government action, and I don't understand how we would otherwise enforce a policy that people who don't like our values need to leave.
I think we do both. We have strict limits on who and how many we allow in from very different cultures. But we also make clear what the expectations are on those we do allow in.
You assume that government action is needed to make people leave. You misunderstand. We need to create an environment which makes it hard for those who want to behave like or preach the ideology of homicidal fascism to do so. If they feel uncomfortable because it is not so easy for them to do what they would like then they will, I hope, leave. We have done the opposite: we have made it all too easy for such people to spread the ideology and, in some cases, we have criticised those people and policies designed to counter the ideology. That is why London has been called by the French amongst others Londonistan. It has felt at times that parts of the British political and intellectual class have actually put out the welcome mat for fascists. I think that should stop.
I am fed up, seriously pissed off in fact, with the "trahison des clercs" by too many people in Britain, who pour scorn on this country and what it stands for/
I am well aware that values are not set in stone. They change but they should change for the better. Not for the worse. And too many people - too many in your party, Nick, I'm sorry to say - have been too willing to want those values to change to embrace the worst values around at the moment. Enough.
I see that the barriers on national borders are now going up throughout the EU. Is this the end of schengen?
If it is its the end of EU. Where are the supporters of open borders and free movement now?
The UK and Ireland have been in the EU since 1973 without the need to join Schengen. I wouldn't be surprised if Eurocrats thought the solution was more policing powers for the centre, which follows as naturally for Schengen as the ECB does for the Eurozone.
Yes, but the basic premise of the EU is freedom of movement, once that has ended so has the ghastly project, in effect they're admitting that by closing borders.
It looks like Putin is coming in from the cold. Rapidly. BBC news showed Putin and Cameron in discussion and Obama and Putin literally head to head as they whisper in each others ears.
Will it make a difference? Who knows?
It depends if they can convince Putin to unleash hell on ISIS, rather than taking pot shots at the other rabble groups. Unlike Cameron or Obama, he doesn't really have to worry about the electoral impact of any decision.
Before Russia's intervention, ISIS had 13 months of US and 'coalition' airstrikes, and were rapidly spreading and acting with total impunity, now they are losing territory. If anyone needs to be persuaded to 'unleash hell' (or even mild purgatory would be a start) on ISIS, it's the US coalition, with its 7 airstrikes a day. Compared to 800 a day to get rid of Saddam.
The allegation is that Tory Sam Armstrong hid in the foliage outside the East India Club with a polaroid camera hoping to take snaps of the pair following a love-making session. It is understood that he missed the pair after being stung by nettles and thus the plot failed.
I know Kippers get accused of being old fashioned but this is ridiculous. The plan failed after he got sting by stinging nettles. The level of incompetence is something you would expect to see in a Mr Bean movie.
What's more, pace @NickPalmer, I don't think it at all unreasonable to expect people who come and live here to adapt to our values and discard those that don't fit. Not in the slightest. Any society with even a smidgen of self-respect would expect that.
People coming here because we are a more successful economy with freedoms that they don't have in their country of origin need to understand that these arise from the very values that we are asking them to accept. The reason their own countries are such a mess is, in part, because they don't have such values or have worse ones.
It's precisely this cultural cringe, this refusal to place any expectations on those who choose to live in our society which is one of the reasons why we have groups of people living here actively hating and despising us and areas of the country (e.g. as in Belgium and the banlieues) where the authorities have "lost control".
Surely 'Britishness' isn't an abstract idea but an snapshot of the views of the population? What people refer to as British values are what Britain was 50 years ago. A significant proportion of British values today are Islamic, whether the rest of the population like it or not... If Islam became the majority religion in Britain in 50 years or so, British values would be sharia law etc
I disagree profoundly with this. The idea of Britain and of British values outlast and to a certain extent are independent of the people within the territory at any one particular moment. Your view is a rather passive one - and I don't mean this as a criticism of you - that says that because some people come here with different views we are obliged to accept those views. I thik British culture and history and tradition and values are matters which we pass on, we build on. We have a duty to do so. Of course it adapts and changes but there are some core values which need to endure, which we must ensure do endure.
I am a Gaullist in this. Just as he had "une certaine idee de la France" I have a certain idea of Britain which I think is of great value and which I am not willing to see ruined or defeated by worse ideas.
I do think that the concept of "Britishness" is a moveable feast and that is a good thing in many ways. I remember, about the age of 10, going to see the Black and White Minstrels in Southampton at the instance of my parents who had been keen. Afterwards we all looked at each other and thought, nah, that's not right. Even when I started work 30 years ago homosexuals were persecuted and blackmailed with threats of criminal charges for consensual acts. When my mother got married in 1960 she had to leave the Bank because they did not think it appropriate to employ married women.
These have all changed massively in our lifetime and, in my view at least, they have all changed very much for the better. I think we are lucky enough to live in an extremely socially liberal society today and I would do all I can to support and maintain those values. But the idea that at any one time there is a view of Britishness which is independent of the people who live here at the time troubles me.
But when values do change, it should be the result of organic consensus building, not imposition or takeover (and to those who say, 'but you want to impose your values on immigrants', I'd say 'to an extent, yes, but then that's part of the conditions of coming in the first place').
It's precisely this cultural cringe, this refusal to place any expectations on those who choose to live in our society which is one of the reasons why we have groups of people living here actively hating and despising us and areas of the country (e.g. as in Belgium and the banlieues) where the authorities have "lost control".
Is that not somewhat simplistic? It tends to be second- and occasionally third-generation young men who have been the most dangerous in terms of radical Islam. Their parents - the ones who chose to come to live here - are usually mystified and appalled.
Funny how PB Tories think the current ISIS problem is all Jezzas fault.
The primary reason for ISIS existing IMO is the slaughter of Muslims in wars such as Iraq.
Remind me which side were you on in those decisions.
I was on the same as Jezza.
I think a certain Ken Clarke said at the time you will create thousands of OBL's with the pursuit of this war. He was right.
No one thinks ISIS is Corbyn's fault. Like almost every other topic he is not relevant to their success or failure.
All it demonstrates is the poor judgments he has made in the past; the sort of people he wanted to associate with and support; his basic stupidity in giving these sort of people credence on the basis that if they were anti-American or anti-British they were probably right about other things as well; the futility of his basically pacifist stand when faced with such murderous villains and the problems his party has caused with multiculturalism, uncontrolled immigration from alien cultures and its tolerance of behaviour and attitudes incompatible with our core values for electoral advantage.
That's all.
I disagree David, Scott and his ilk seem to lay the ills of the world at Corbyn's feet , very tedious indeed.
It gives him a relevance he simply doesn't deserve.
I see that the barriers on national borders are now going up throughout the EU. Is this the end of schengen?
If it is its the end of EU. Where are the supporters of open borders and free movement now?
The UK and Ireland have been in the EU since 1973 without the need to join Schengen. I wouldn't be surprised if Eurocrats thought the solution was more policing powers for the centre, which follows as naturally for Schengen as the ECB does for the Eurozone.
Yes, but the basic premise of the EU is freedom of movement, once that has ended so has the ghastly project, in effect they're admitting that by closing borders.
Free movement does not mean no border controls - it means that any EU citizen can live and work anywhere in the EU. Border controls existed in all EU countries before Schengen and they could be reinstated without compromising the principle of free movement.
I do think that the concept of "Britishness" is a moveable feast and that is a good thing in many ways. I remember, about the age of 10, going to see the Black and White Minstrels in Southampton at the instance of my parents who had been keen. Afterwards we all looked at each other and thought, nah, that's not right. Even when I started work 30 years ago homosexuals were persecuted and blackmailed with threats of criminal charges for consensual acts. When my mother got married in 1960 she had to leave the Bank because they did not think it appropriate to employ married women.
These have all changed massively in our lifetime and, in my view at least, they have all changed very much for the better. I think we are lucky enough to live in an extremely socially liberal society today and I would do all I can to support and maintain those values. But the idea that at any one time there is a view of Britishness which is independent of the people who live here at the time troubles me.
Values don't have to be just social ones, which as you say have changed - and for the better in the ways you describe (though only a fool would say that all change is unequivocally for the good. There is always a cost to all change, even if that cost might be minimal or acceptable).
There are other values which do exist beyond the people at any one time. The very concept of human rights comes from this idea. The common law, government as the servant of the people and only with the consent of the people, freedom to speak your mind, habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, trial by your peers, everything being permitted save for what is expressly prohibited, the rule of law, certainty under the law, an Englishman's home is his castle etc etc. We owe a duty to past generations and to future ones to preserve the best of British history, values and traditions. It is a very Burkean view, a very compelling one to me. But I think this view is one of the glories of Britain because it has allowed Britain to be both an immensely stable country but also to change and update in ways which have not, generally, been accompanied by murderous revolutions.
isam isn't banned at the moment - he's commented twice on this thread. I
I think we do both. We have strict limits on who and how many we allow in from very different cultures. But we also make clear what the expectations are on those we do allow in.
You assume that government action is needed to make people leave. You misunderstand. We need to create an environment which makes it hard for those who want to behave like or preach the ideology of homicidal fascism to do so. If they feel uncomfortable because it is not so easy for them to do what they would like then they will, I hope, leave. We have done the opposite: we have made it all too easy for such people to spread the ideology and, in some cases, we have criticised those people and policies designed to counter the ideology. That is why London has been called by the French amongst others Londonistan. It has felt at times that parts of the British political and intellectual class have actually put out the welcome mat for fascists. I think that should stop.
I am fed up, seriously pissed off in fact, with the "trahison des clercs" by too many people in Britain, who pour scorn on this country and what it stands for/
I am well aware that values are not set in stone. They change but they should change for the better. Not for the worse. And too many people - too many in your party, Nick, I'm sorry to say - have been too willing to want those values to change to embrace the worst values around at the moment. Enough.
Labour do seem to project the notion that, as long as they give Labour their votes, Muslims can pretty do what they want - and Labour will let them get on with it. From cousin marriages to FGM to hate preaching to corrupt election practices to industrial-scale rape of the young, Labour has been woefully quiet.
It's precisely this cultural cringe, this refusal to place any expectations on those who choose to live in our society which is one of the reasons why we have groups of people living here actively hating and despising us and areas of the country (e.g. as in Belgium and the banlieues) where the authorities have "lost control".
Is that not somewhat simplistic? It tends to be second- and occasionally third-generation young men who have been the most dangerous in terms of radical Islam. Their parents - the ones who chose to come to live here - are usually mystified and appalled.
It's the second and following generations who make the trouble. They find it difficult to fit in the Western societies because their elders promote traditional ways with which they themselves are used to.
You assume that government action is needed to make people leave. You misunderstand. We need to create an environment which makes it hard for those who want to behave like or preach the ideology of homicidal fascism to do so.
But what, specifically, would you have us do? It is already illegal to preach or undertake homicide, so that's a matter for an active DPP. It is legal to support fascism, or caliphates. If you would like more people to speak out against them, you can urge this, and some will and some won't, just like now. Are you suggesting more than actively speaking out, as many already do, with more or less media coverage? As a general rule, the more reasonable a speech, the less coverage it gets (how much coverage has the outraged MCB statement on the bombings had?).
You won't, I think, suspect that I have secret sympathies for fascism (or caliphates). But I argued against the attempt to stop BNP spokesmen from holding meetings, so long as their speeches stayed within the law: I think we lose more by suppressing opinion than we gain. We should define what is legal carefully, then allow any legal opinion to be held and expressed.
I see that the barriers on national borders are now going up throughout the EU. Is this the end of schengen?
If it is its the end of EU. Where are the supporters of open borders and free movement now?
The UK and Ireland have been in the EU since 1973 without the need to join Schengen. I wouldn't be surprised if Eurocrats thought the solution was more policing powers for the centre, which follows as naturally for Schengen as the ECB does for the Eurozone.
Yes, but the basic premise of the EU is freedom of movement, once that has ended so has the ghastly project, in effect they're admitting that by closing borders.
Free movement does not mean no border controls - it means that any EU citizen can live and work anywhere in the EU. Border controls existed in all EU countries before Schengen and they could be reinstated without compromising the principle of free movement.
The Schengen Agreement led to the creation of Europe's borderless Schengen Area. This has now ended.
''Labour do seem to project the notion that, as long as they give Labour their votes, Muslims can pretty do what they want - and Labour will let them get on with it. From cousin marriages to FGM to hate preaching to corrupt election practices to industrial-scale rape of the young, Labour has been woefully quiet. ''
You assume that government action is needed to make people leave. You misunderstand. We need to create an environment which makes it hard for those who want to behave like or preach the ideology of homicidal fascism to do so.
But what, specifically, would you have us do? It is already illegal to preach or undertake homicide, so that's a matter for an active DPP. It is legal to support fascism, or caliphates. If you would like more people to speak out against them, you can urge this, and some will and some won't, just like now. Are you suggesting more than actively speaking out, as many already do, with more or less media coverage? As a general rule, the more reasonable a speech, the less coverage it gets (how much coverage has the outraged MCB statement on the bombings had?).
You won't, I think, suspect that I have secret sympathies for fascism (or caliphates). But I argued against the attempt to stop BNP spokesmen from holding meetings, so long as their speeches stayed within the law: I think we lose more by suppressing opinion than we gain. We should define what is legal carefully, then allow any legal opinion to be held and expressed.
Agreed. We can do a lot by actively enforcing the laws we do have.
You assume that government action is needed to make people leave. You misunderstand. We need to create an environment which makes it hard for those who want to behave like or preach the ideology of homicidal fascism to do so.
But what, specifically, would you have us do? It is already illegal to preach or undertake homicide, so that's a matter for an active DPP. It is legal to support fascism, or caliphates. If you would like more people to speak out against them, you can urge this, and some will and some won't, just like now. Are you suggesting more than actively speaking out, as many already do, with more or less media coverage? As a general rule, the more reasonable a speech, the less coverage it gets (how much coverage has the outraged MCB statement on the bombings had?).
You won't, I think, suspect that I have secret sympathies for fascism (or caliphates). But I argued against the attempt to stop BNP spokesmen from holding meetings, so long as their speeches stayed within the law: I think we lose more by suppressing opinion than we gain. We should define what is legal carefully, then allow any legal opinion to be held and expressed.
Out of interest Mr Palmer, who wanted to stop BNP from holding meetings?
What's more, pace @NickPalmer, I don't think it at all unreasonable to expect people who come and live here to adapt to our values and discard those that don't fit. Not in the slightest. Any society with even a smidgen of self-respect would expect that.
People coming here because we are a more successful economy with freedoms that they don't have in their country of origin need to understand that these arise from the very values that we are asking them to accept. The reason their own countries are such a mess is, in part, because they don't have such values or have worse ones.
It's precisely this cultural cringe, this refusal to place any expectations on those who choose to live in our society which is one of the reasons why we have groups of people living here actively hating and despising us and areas of the country (e.g. as in Belgium and the banlieues) where the authorities have "lost control".
I'll take the middle ground when it pertains to 'British values'. I've written before about my experiences as a child - older boys on my school bus talking quite openly about going 'queer bashing' or 'paki bashing'. I've seen women break through a fair number of glass ceilings in my lifetime. Social mores have even changed on drink driving and smoking.
It's worth remembering that over 70 countries still criminalise homosexual activity, and same-sex marriages are still not recognised in 9 EU countries. Some European countries still require sterilisation before they'll legally recognise gender transition.
We are, slowly and collectively, moving to a position where we treat people as people, irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, disability and so forth. That's not the case with (as just one example) ISIS, and other fundamentalist religious groups. I'm not going to take any cultural lessons from them. It's a tragedy - Islam used to be one of the most liberal religions; it simply hasn't changed as fast as the rest of the world, to its great disadvantage.
You assume that government action is needed to make people leave. You misunderstand. We need to create an environment which makes it hard for those who want to behave like or preach the ideology of homicidal fascism to do so.
You won't, I think, suspect that I have secret sympathies for fascism (or caliphates). But I argued against the attempt to stop BNP spokesmen from holding meetings, so long as their speeches stayed within the law: I think we lose more by suppressing opinion than we gain. We should define what is legal carefully, then allow any legal opinion to be held and expressed.
Shouldn't we be in fact extending freedom of opinion by repealing some of the religious hate legislation so that Islam (in this instance but not exclusively) can be ridiculed or satirized, perhaps in the manner of the late Dave Allen with the Catholic church, without fear of prosecution (still less persecution by the nutters).
What's more, pace @NickPalmer, I don't think it at all unreasonable to expect people who come and live here to adapt to our values and discard those that don't fit. Not in the slightest. Any society with even a smidgen of self-respect would expect that.
People coming here because we are a more successful economy with freedoms that they don't have in their country of origin need to understand that these arise from the very values that we are asking them to accept. The reason their own countries are such a mess is, in part, because they don't have such values or have worse ones.
It's precisely this cultural cringe, this refusal to place any expectations on those who choose to live in our society which is one of the reasons why we have groups of people living here actively hating and despising us and areas of the country (e.g. as in Belgium and the banlieues) where the authorities have "lost control".
I'll take the middle ground when it pertains to 'British values'. I've written before about my experiences as a child - older boys on my school bus talking quite openly about going 'queer bashing' or 'paki bashing'. I've seen women break through a fair number of glass ceilings in my lifetime. Social mores have even changed on drink driving and smoking.
It's worth remembering that over 70 countries still criminalise homosexual activity, and same-sex marriages are still not recognised in 9 EU countries. Some European countries still require sterilisation before they'll legally recognise gender transition.
We are, slowly and collectively, moving to a position where we treat people as people, irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, disability and so forth. That's not the case with (as just one example) ISIS, and other fundamentalist religious groups. I'm not going to take any cultural lessons from them. It's a tragedy - Islam used to be one of the most liberal religions; it simply hasn't changed as fast as the rest of the world, to its great disadvantage.
Interesting Mr M, I had similar experiences but none of those who boasted of queer or paki bashing actually carried it out. What's more, I often suspected the homophobes were trying to cover something up.
''Shouldn't we be in fact extending freedom of opinion by repealing some of the religious hate legislation so that Islam (in this instance but not exclusively) can be ridiculed or satirized, perhaps in the manner of the late Dave Allen with the Catholic church, without fear of prosecution (still less persecution by the nutters)''.
Indeed. And protecting people who want to be apostates from intimidation.
You assume that government action is needed to make people leave. You misunderstand. We need to create an environment which makes it hard for those who want to behave like or preach the ideology of homicidal fascism to do so.
But what, specifically, would you have us do? It is already illegal to preach or undertake homicide, so that's a matter for an active DPP. It is legal to support fascism, or caliphates. If you would like more people to speak out against them, you can urge this, and some will and some won't, just like now. Are you suggesting more than actively speaking out, as many already do, with more or less media coverage? As a general rule, the more reasonable a speech, the less coverage it gets (how much coverage has the outraged MCB statement on the bombings had?).
You won't, I think, suspect that I have secret sympathies for fascism (or caliphates). But I argued against the attempt to stop BNP spokesmen from holding meetings, so long as their speeches stayed within the law: I think we lose more by suppressing opinion than we gain. We should define what is legal carefully, then allow any legal opinion to be held and expressed.
Out of interest Mr Palmer, who wanted to stop BNP from holding meetings?
The No Platform brigade of stalinists, trots and the Shadow Chancellor.
Comments
cyclefree feels that our key values are immutable and very important to defend. I agree with the latter for many of our values (like David I'm cautious about the former). But I don't think it lends itself to Government action, and I don't understand how we would otherwise enforce a policy that people who don't like our values need to leave.
The British left are consumed by hatred for middle England.
I won't name the posters who did so. Perhaps they recall commenting and won't repeat their behaviour
He posted twice, then was banned. Saw his avatar change. Would be nice to know so we know what to avoid saying so we can avoid being banned.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/16/corbynista-complaint-to-iain-mcnicol-revealed/
It's revolting intimidation. I feel for SO et al.
What is the aluminium/metalic suit for, that some Paris casualties are wearing?
The contributors on here all weekend have lacked the usual left/liberal mob, are they beginning to accept that they were wrong (doubt it) or are they regrouping?
Pots, kettles, geese and ganders spring to mind:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33868771
Given social media is packed with halfwits and nutjobs it will bemainly Bovine manure as per usual. One good saying from Cameron Twitter is for TWA**
The term 'Britishness' makes more sense in contrast to 'Frenchness' or 'American-ness' or 'Danishness'. And that, I would say, is more a difference of style, modes of speech, and approach to problem-solving than one of fundamental values.
I have been busy unfriending some people this morning, who have been pushing the conspiracy angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94
MODERATION
The moderation on PB is run by volunteers who enable us to have the types of discussion that we have. Any poster who seeks to undermine a member of the team will be banned.I'm not getting into a discussion about why any post has been deleted or poster banned. This is my site and I run it how I wish.
If you have commented on moderation on this thread then I suggest that you delete your comments immediately.
DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?
Will it make a difference? Who knows?
I don't want "I told you so" from Nigel, just a clear and coherent message of where we are and how we should react, I don't see that coming from anywhere else.
If you cannot engage with adults - however childish they choose to behave then, maybe, it is time to pass-over-the-riegns? That said: We should never question moderation...!
There's only a five minute window on editing posts, so unfortunately the mods will have to purge the thread if necessary. I don't think that asking why an action was taken undermines the moderators, but what do I know?
Comments over 6 minutes old can't be edited ^^;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Crazy.
(It's space blanket. Very effective. Keep some in the car).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Viskey-Emergency-Blanket/dp/B00OOXLQCK
Have had one of those foil blankets as part of my hill walking kit. Thankfully it hasn't been used.
Who are the mods? I thought TSE claimed he wasn't one - or was he referring to admin status?
Seeking clarity, not looking to be banned!
Miss Plato, it is known.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urglg3WimHA
This is a matter of life and death.
You assume that government action is needed to make people leave. You misunderstand. We need to create an environment which makes it hard for those who want to behave like or preach the ideology of homicidal fascism to do so. If they feel uncomfortable because it is not so easy for them to do what they would like then they will, I hope, leave. We have done the opposite: we have made it all too easy for such people to spread the ideology and, in some cases, we have criticised those people and policies designed to counter the ideology. That is why London has been called by the French amongst others Londonistan. It has felt at times that parts of the British political and intellectual class have actually put out the welcome mat for fascists. I think that should stop.
I am fed up, seriously pissed off in fact, with the "trahison des clercs" by too many people in Britain, who pour scorn on this country and what it stands for/
I am well aware that values are not set in stone. They change but they should change for the better. Not for the worse. And too many people - too many in your party, Nick, I'm sorry to say - have been too willing to want those values to change to embrace the worst values around at the moment. Enough.
People coming here because we are a more successful economy with freedoms that they don't have in their country of origin need to understand that these arise from the very values that we are asking them to accept. The reason their own countries are such a mess is, in part, because they don't have such values or have worse ones.
It's precisely this cultural cringe, this refusal to place any expectations on those who choose to live in our society which is one of the reasons why we have groups of people living here actively hating and despising us and areas of the country (e.g. as in Belgium and the banlieues) where the authorities have "lost control".
people on scooters who like Paul Weller?
I'll get my parka with the big target on the back...
There are other values which do exist beyond the people at any one time. The very concept of human rights comes from this idea. The common law, government as the servant of the people and only with the consent of the people, freedom to speak your mind, habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, trial by your peers, everything being permitted save for what is expressly prohibited, the rule of law, certainty under the law, an Englishman's home is his castle etc etc. We owe a duty to past generations and to future ones to preserve the best of British history, values and traditions. It is a very Burkean view, a very compelling one to me. But I think this view is one of the glories of Britain because it has allowed Britain to be both an immensely stable country but also to change and update in ways which have not, generally, been accompanied by murderous revolutions.
Samy Amimour's father returned to Paris without him, Le Monde reports
You won't, I think, suspect that I have secret sympathies for fascism (or caliphates). But I argued against the attempt to stop BNP spokesmen from holding meetings, so long as their speeches stayed within the law: I think we lose more by suppressing opinion than we gain. We should define what is legal carefully, then allow any legal opinion to be held and expressed.
Indeed.
It's worth remembering that over 70 countries still criminalise homosexual activity, and same-sex marriages are still not recognised in 9 EU countries. Some European countries still require sterilisation before they'll legally recognise gender transition.
We are, slowly and collectively, moving to a position where we treat people as people, irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, disability and so forth. That's not the case with (as just one example) ISIS, and other fundamentalist religious groups. I'm not going to take any cultural lessons from them. It's a tragedy - Islam used to be one of the most liberal religions; it simply hasn't changed as fast as the rest of the world, to its great disadvantage.
Indeed. And protecting people who want to be apostates from intimidation.