Brexit increasingly dominates views of Johnson – politicalbetting.com

System

Brexit increasingly dominates views of Johnson – politicalbetting.com

The above data splits from the latest Opinium approval ratings of the PM show just how Brexit continues to totally dominate views of Johnson.

Read the full story here

BigRich

first, Like a hard left candidate in a unite election?

TheScreamingEagles

testes

turbotubbs

TheScreamingEagles said:

testes

That is all...

IanB2

Leavers must be able to see clothes where there are none, I guess.

MaxPB

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

isam

IanB2 said:

Leavers must be able to see clothes where there are none, I guess.

...as well as the food on the shelves where Remainers see none!

ping

Fpt; And, well, from a previous century, too;

Evening all

And now for something completely different…

Just listened to “The Nuremberg trials” podcast on bbc sounds from 1996.

Search “Nuremberg” on bbc sounds app.

Can’t believe the medium has been around for 25 years! It’s an important hour and a half of listening btw. I learned some new stuff too, like in his defence, how goerring fained ignorance of the nazi atrocities at Auschwitz etc. I don’t know what I assumed his defence would have been, but how the hell did he think he’d get away with that as his defence?

Idiot.

rcs1000

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

DougSeal

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

FPT Can confirm. I went to the local Grammar in Canterbury (I was born on New Years Day) but my brother, birthday 31 August, didn’t get in. However within a couple of years it was clear that he deserved a place at my school far more than some of the absolute tools who fluked the 11+ and became my classmates.

IshmaelZ

ping said:

Fpt; And, well, from a previous century, too;

Evening all

And now for something completely different…

Just listened to “The Nuremberg trials” podcast on bbc sounds from 1996.

Search “Nuremberg” on bbc sounds app.

Can’t believe the medium has been around for 25 years! It’s an important hour and a half of listening btw. I learned some new stuff too, like in his defence, how goerring fained ignorance of the nazi atrocities at Auschwitz etc. I don’t know what I assumed his defence would have been, but how the hell did he think he’d get away with that as his defence?

Idiot.

He was (quite literally) having a laugh. Google goering nuremberg laugh.

NorthofStoke

The move to comprehensives occurred at the same time as other major changes in education. If the best elements of the grammar school educational culture had been preserved for the top streams in comprehensives would we have had the best of both worlds? My personal experience was starting at a brand new state of the art comprehensive then switching to a grammar school due to relocation.

Pagan2

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

MaxPB

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

Yes, they'd be in the 70% of Pakistanis who aren't comfortable with western secular life. Possibly in the 30% who tolerate it but don't get on with it.

HYUFD

Of course Leavers have a far more positive view of Boris than Remainers.

However given 406 constituencies voted Leave and only 242 voted Remain under FPTP that will not concern the PM much.

Even if Remainers loathe him as long as a comfortable majority of Leavers still back him Boris will be re elected

FeersumEnjineeya

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

When my lad took the 11+ in Birmingham recently, the scores were adjusted to compensate for birth month, so that's one of your bugbears addressed. The others still hold though.

ping

IshmaelZ said:

ping said:

Fpt; And, well, from a previous century, too;

Evening all

And now for something completely different…

Just listened to “The Nuremberg trials” podcast on bbc sounds from 1996.

Search “Nuremberg” on bbc sounds app.

Can’t believe the medium has been around for 25 years! It’s an important hour and a half of listening btw. I learned some new stuff too, like in his defence, how goerring fained ignorance of the nazi atrocities at Auschwitz etc. I don’t know what I assumed his defence would have been, but how the hell did he think he’d get away with that as his defence?

Idiot.

He was (quite literally) having a laugh. Google goering nuremberg laugh.

Wow. Seems he didn’t take it seriously at all. There’s a great soviet propaganda film of the Nuremberg trials occasionally available on YouTube (seems to be unavailable at the moment - copyright?) that was sampled by the manics on their 1994 Holy Bible album.

It’s sampled at the start of quite possibly the darkest song ever written - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVDwqNe1AXw

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.

If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp or academy, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars

Pagan2

MaxPB said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

Yes, they'd be in the 70% of Pakistanis who aren't comfortable with western secular life. Possibly in the 30% who tolerate it but don't get on with it.

It was a great shame, as I said she was a lovely girl. But sadly there are in my view two types of muslim. The westernised more secular ones and the ones that came to live here but never bought into western values. The middles classes mostly runs into the first type I find and can't see a problem. The same can be true of hindu's as well which is another major population where I live. There are the westernised that have adopted our values their are also those that still hold to the caste system

HYUFD

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

MaxPB

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular country too as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

Not really, Christian African kids and Catholic Eastern European kids will be very much like my generation. Religious parents but it's wholly optional for us. I've lived the life, you haven't.

Pagan2

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular country too as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

Even though someone of faith I don't see this as a good thing. Absolutists are the problem not those of faith that are willing to live and let live

kjh

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.

If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars

The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?

HYUFD

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular country too as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

Not really, Christian African kids and Catholic Eastern European kids will be very much like my generation. Religious parents but it's wholly optional for us. I've lived the life, you haven't.

They will still likely be more religious than their white British kid peers relatively, so the shift would still be there and as more immigrants arrive the trend continues

Pagan2

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.

If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars

The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?

I admit bias in this, my son got through 11 plus entry to a grammar school

We had two choices of school avao;able the local grammar, the local comprehensive. He had friends that went to the comprehensive and kept in touch with them and he was so thankful from their descriptions of life there he had escaped it as they mostly described it as a recruiting ground for local gangs

IshmaelZ

Richard_Tyndall said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

An insight into why Charlie Watts was one of the all time great drummers:

"'Get Off of My Cloud'

From: 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' (1965)

Like he does on "Honky Honk Women" (see No. 2 on our list of the Top 10 Charlie Watts Rolling Stones Songs), Watts totally dominates the Stones' second No. 1 single, which features one of the most unconventional drum structures ever employed in a Top 40 hit. Basically, Watts plays the same 4/4-beat-fill-4/4-beat-fill pattern throughout the song, guaranteeing you won't be able to escape the noisy upstairs neighbours, no matter how hard you try. That he keeps it up for the entire three minutes without once breaking the beat is a testament to his timeless talent."

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/charlie-watts-rolling-stones-songs/

Being able to repeat a simple pattern for 3 minutes without a mistake is a sign of timeless talent? How do we know he didn't record it once and loop it?

Is it a bad time to ask who it was who called them white boys playing black music badly?

It is worth pointing out that - sad as it may be as a reflection of the US - if it weren't for those English white boys then no one in the US outside of the black communities would have been listening to that black music.

I think both led zeppelin and the doors were doing a more authentic version of it.

Zeppelin not for me but I like The Doors a lot.

Not saying that led zeppelin were good, but how much of their stuff was inspired plagiarism of the likes of Robert Johnson, blind Willie Johnson, h. Wolf etc

Its hardly plagiarism when they took every opportunity to make clear where they owed their debts.

They were successfully sued over Whole Lotta Love, settled various other claims on unknown terms, often didn't initially credit writers and later did (e.g. Howlin' Wolf on the appalling Lemon Song), etc etc.

FeersumEnjineeya

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.

If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars

Here in Brum entry at 13 is extremely rare. How would a school fit in additional pupils without also getting rid of some? Entry at 16 is less unusual since all pupils are admitted the 6th form solely on the basis of their GCSEs, including those who previously attended the school.

Casino_Royale

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

FPT - the beautiful British-Libyan Muslim girl I fancied when I was younger (and she me - our chemistry was fantastic) made it clear the only way anything could ever happen was if I converted to Islam. I think her family was a big part of that but I think she agreed with it at some level too.

I was clear I wasn't prepared to do that, and so that was the end of that.

dixiedean

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular country too as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

Even though someone of faith I don't see this as a good thing. Absolutists are the problem not those of faith that are willing to live and let live

This is spot on.
It is a point which, sadly, seems to require making again and again.

IshmaelZ

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

HYUFD

Pagan2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.

If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars

The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?

I admit bias in this, my son got through 11 plus entry to a grammar school

We had two choices of school avao;able the local grammar, the local comprehensive. He had friends that went to the comprehensive and kept in touch with them and he was so thankful from their descriptions of life there he had escaped it as they mostly described it as a recruiting ground for local gangs

Yes comprehensives may be fine in wealthy suburban areas or market towns or rural areas, less so in poor seaside towns or crime ridden inner cities

MaxPB

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular country too as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

Not really, Christian African kids and Catholic Eastern European kids will be very much like my generation. Religious parents but it's wholly optional for us. I've lived the life, you haven't.

They will still likely be more religious than their white British kid peers relatively, so the shift would still be there and as more immigrants arrive the trend continues

Doubtful. They will pay lip service to whatever church or temple their parents want them to go to. We all do it, I go to the temple just to avoid having an argument with my mum, all of my cousins do it too.

stodge

Mid evening all

It is astonishing how much the events of 2016 continue to resonate through the body politic.

It's been five years and three months since the vote - that's longer than the first world war and getting toward the length of the second and yet it's almost as though we are paralysed by June 23rd 2016.

We've had two General Elections since and for all that attitudes seem as entrenched and polarised as ever.

Can we move forward from this? Time is a great healer and perhaps in another five years the divisiveness will have eased a fraction - for now, despite everything else going on in the world and the myriad of other challenges facing us and the world in the 2020s and beyond, we seem incapable of moving on (both victors and vanquished).

Pagan2

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

FPT - the beautiful British-Libyan Muslim girl I fancied when I was younger (and she me - our chemistry was fantastic) made it clear the only way anything could ever happen was if I converted to Islam. I think her family was a big part of that but I think she agreed with it at some level too.

I was clear I wasn't prepared to do that, and so that was the end of that.

The reason I sat them down and talked to them were two fold....a teenager had been murdered for dating someones daughter a couple of years before. Also a friend that was a muslim dated a white guy and refused to back down....well shall I say I was there when in the high street her brother came up to her and spat in her face.

Now I would have been happy for the relationship to continue but I could see trouble coming so insisted they discussed it with her family. End result she went to pakistan and came back married to a cousin

HYUFD

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

MaxPB

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Your certainty about what will be true in 2100 is interesting.

IshmaelZ

The threader is based on a correlation/causation fallacy. There's a whole bundle of attitudes which correlate very strongly with Leaverdom/Remainerdom, and it remains a useful shorthand for labelling people, but that doesn't mean that the voting for and implementation of brexit is a major driver in approval of Johnson today. To take just one point which we've done to death Rs tend to have had more formal education than Ls.

Scott_xP

TheScreamingEagles said:

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

Aye, right.

tlg86

Ah, grammar schools, we haven’t done this recently.

My comp streamed in year 7 (go round the school as one class - set by general ability - to get used to the big school) and then set classes by ability for individual subjects for years 8 to 11. So that’s not really much different to a grammar school.

Where I felt badly let down was that nobody helped me pick my A Levels. Looking back, it’s obvious what subjects I should have done, but politics and economics aren’t the sort of subjects that get much attention at a comp.

ping

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

Hahahhahahahaha

Yeah right!

Iirc, back when, he said his faith is like tuning into the radio while driving around the chilterns

“It comes and goes”

As it suits him

kjh

Pagan2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.

If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars

The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?

I admit bias in this, my son got through 11 plus entry to a grammar school

We had two choices of school avao;able the local grammar, the local comprehensive. He had friends that went to the comprehensive and kept in touch with them and he was so thankful from their descriptions of life there he had escaped it as they mostly described it as a recruiting ground for local gangs

I don't blame you. Once you are in the system you have to do what is best for your child. If I were in a grammar school area I would have done the same.

TheScreamingEagles

ping said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

Hahahhahahahaha

Yeah right!

Iirc, back when, he said his faith is like tuning into the radio while driving around the chilterns

“It comes and goes”

That was Dave.

Casino_Royale

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

FPT - the beautiful British-Libyan Muslim girl I fancied when I was younger (and she me - our chemistry was fantastic) made it clear the only way anything could ever happen was if I converted to Islam. I think her family was a big part of that but I think she agreed with it at some level too.

I was clear I wasn't prepared to do that, and so that was the end of that.

The reason I sat them down and talked to them were two fold....a teenager had been murdered for dating someones daughter a couple of years before. Also a friend that was a muslim dated a white guy and refused to back down....well shall I say I was there when in the high street her brother came up to her and spat in her face.

Now I would have been happy for the relationship to continue but I could see trouble coming so insisted they discussed it with her family. End result she went to pakistan and came back married to a cousin

It's very sad. I suspect I'd have just had a warning or two from my parents and then, eventually, acquiescence but some people face losing their entire families and violence.

dixiedean

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.

If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars

The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?

I admit bias in this, my son got through 11 plus entry to a grammar school

We had two choices of school avao;able the local grammar, the local comprehensive. He had friends that went to the comprehensive and kept in touch with them and he was so thankful from their descriptions of life there he had escaped it as they mostly described it as a recruiting ground for local gangs

Yes comprehensives may be fine in wealthy suburban areas or market towns or rural areas, less so in poor seaside towns or crime ridden inner cities

Comprehensives don't exist in areas with grammar schools. They are Secondary Moderns.

kle4

ping said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

Hahahhahahahaha

Yeah right!

Iirc, back when, he said his faith is like tuning into the radio while driving around the chilterns

“It comes and goes”

That's true for a lot of people. TSE didn't claim Boris was a good catholic after all. Though he'd have been a good fit for a medieval pope.

TheScreamingEagles

Boris Johnson is perfect the Catholic church.

Both favour the withdrawal method.

Although Boris Johnson has had more success in pulling out in his political career (Brexiting and withdrawing from the 2016 leadership contest) than he has had in his private life.

Peter_the_Punter

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

FPT - the beautiful British-Libyan Muslim girl I fancied when I was younger (and she me - our chemistry was fantastic) made it clear the only way anything could ever happen was if I converted to Islam. I think her family was a big part of that but I think she agreed with it at some level too.

I was clear I wasn't prepared to do that, and so that was the end of that.

That's terribly sad, CR.

I also once courted a girl from a different religion. Her parents were orthodox Jews. One day her father found out I was a goy, and threatened to cut my schmekel off.

That too was the end of that.

IshmaelZ

stodge said:

Mid evening all

It is astonishing how much the events of 2016 continue to resonate through the body politic.

It's been five years and three months since the vote - that's longer than the first world war and getting toward the length of the second and yet it's almost as though we are paralysed by June 23rd 2016.

We've had two General Elections since and for all that attitudes seem as entrenched and polarised as ever.

Can we move forward from this? Time is a great healer and perhaps in another five years the divisiveness will have eased a fraction - for now, despite everything else going on in the world and the myriad of other challenges facing us and the world in the 2020s and beyond, we seem incapable of moving on (both victors and vanquished).

See my post at 9.10. I don't think this is really about brexit which is a boring, last decade, prelapsarian kinda war which has degenerated into petty skirmishing over supermarket shelves. Leave and Remain are just labels now.

ping

TheScreamingEagles said:

ping said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

Hahahhahahahaha

Yeah right!

Iirc, back when, he said his faith is like tuning into the radio while driving around the chilterns

“It comes and goes”

That was Dave.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/12/catholic-prime-minister-no-10-watershed-moment-boris-johnson

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

MarqueeMark

stodge said:

Mid evening all

It is astonishing how much the events of 2016 continue to resonate through the body politic.

It's been five years and three months since the vote - that's longer than the first world war and getting toward the length of the second and yet it's almost as though we are paralysed by June 23rd 2016.

Leavers aren't paralysed by June 23rd 2016.

But many Remainers seem to believe that the longer they sulk, the more likely they will get their EU back.

Bizarre.

Pagan2

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

FPT - the beautiful British-Libyan Muslim girl I fancied when I was younger (and she me - our chemistry was fantastic) made it clear the only way anything could ever happen was if I converted to Islam. I think her family was a big part of that but I think she agreed with it at some level too.

I was clear I wasn't prepared to do that, and so that was the end of that.

The reason I sat them down and talked to them were two fold....a teenager had been murdered for dating someones daughter a couple of years before. Also a friend that was a muslim dated a white guy and refused to back down....well shall I say I was there when in the high street her brother came up to her and spat in her face.

Now I would have been happy for the relationship to continue but I could see trouble coming so insisted they discussed it with her family. End result she went to pakistan and came back married to a cousin

It's very sad. I suspect I'd have just had a warning or two from my parents and then, eventually, acquiescence but some people face losing their entire families and violence.

shrugs wasnt me that had the problem but yes I felt she needed to talk because she might have lost her family. I still see her occasionally around and when we meet we can sometimes grab a coffee and she is still lovely. Not convinced she is happy

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

Yes he is, although under the 1829 Catholic Relief Act he cannot advise the monarch on the appointment of C of E bishops.

So the Lord Chancellor has to do it instead

rcs1000

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

In his tastes, certainly.

Edit to add, our did you mean “Catholic”?

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

That's true for a lot of people. TSE didn't claim Boris was a good catholic after all. Though he'd have been a good fit for a medieval pope.

I suspect Boris Johnson is as good a Catholic as I am a good Muslim boy.

Casino_Royale

stodge said:

Mid evening all

It is astonishing how much the events of 2016 continue to resonate through the body politic.

It's been five years and three months since the vote - that's longer than the first world war and getting toward the length of the second and yet it's almost as though we are paralysed by June 23rd 2016.

We've had two General Elections since and for all that attitudes seem as entrenched and polarised as ever.

Can we move forward from this? Time is a great healer and perhaps in another five years the divisiveness will have eased a fraction - for now, despite everything else going on in the world and the myriad of other challenges facing us and the world in the 2020s and beyond, we seem incapable of moving on (both victors and vanquished).

Some of this data seems iffy to me - particularly the massive gulf in ABs, exceeding even the C2DEs, really?

It bears greater analysis.

Big_G_NorthWales

I think at this moment in time Afghanistan is the dominant issue and it will become more so over the next seven days and probably much longer

And as I posted at the end of the last thread this will maybe surprising to some



New

Press conference from the White House live

Biden has requested contingency plans if he has to extend from 31st August

And repeated again by his spokesperson

Lots of fudge in this conference

I suspect the thought of pictures of desperate people being held back as US troops fly away must haunt the White House



And Biden 'live' at 9.30

The questions over his ambiguity are going to be very interesting

MaxPB

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

FPT


My son used to date a muslim girl when he was about 17 and she was an angel. Having lived amongst muslims for a long while though, one of the most painful things I had to do when they started getting serious was sit both of them down and say to both of them "You two need to talk to her parents about this before you get deeper." . Sadly it turned out to be the right thing to do as her parents wouldn't countenance it and she got a holiday to go see her family in pakistan out of it.

FPT - the beautiful British-Libyan Muslim girl I fancied when I was younger (and she me - our chemistry was fantastic) made it clear the only way anything could ever happen was if I converted to Islam. I think her family was a big part of that but I think she agreed with it at some level too.

I was clear I wasn't prepared to do that, and so that was the end of that.

The reason I sat them down and talked to them were two fold....a teenager had been murdered for dating someones daughter a couple of years before. Also a friend that was a muslim dated a white guy and refused to back down....well shall I say I was there when in the high street her brother came up to her and spat in her face.

Now I would have been happy for the relationship to continue but I could see trouble coming so insisted they discussed it with her family. End result she went to pakistan and came back married to a cousin

It's very sad. I suspect I'd have just had a warning or two from my parents and then, eventually, acquiescence but some people face losing their entire families and violence.

Yes and sadly it's brown women who face the violence. But Labour need those "community leaders" to harvest votes every few years so who cares about those women...

rcs1000

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

Like Henri IV of France, only substitute “shag” for “Paris”

HYUFD

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ah, the curse of the new thread:

kjh said:

Part 2:

Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:

About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.

The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.

And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.

That's very interesting.

And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.

My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.

You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?

And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.

You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.

If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars

The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?

I admit bias in this, my son got through 11 plus entry to a grammar school

We had two choices of school avao;able the local grammar, the local comprehensive. He had friends that went to the comprehensive and kept in touch with them and he was so thankful from their descriptions of life there he had escaped it as they mostly described it as a recruiting ground for local gangs

Yes comprehensives may be fine in wealthy suburban areas or market towns or rural areas, less so in poor seaside towns or crime ridden inner cities

Comprehensives don't exist in areas with grammar schools. They are Secondary Moderns.

Yes and many high schools in selective areas like Bucks and Trafford still get better GCSE results than comprehensives in poor seaside towns or deprived inner cities even with grammars taking the brightest

kle4

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I assume he, and many, take a Groucho Marx approach to principles, religious or political.

TheScreamingEagles

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

DavidL

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

MaxPB

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I had to get secretly baptised (that's the Protestant one right?) because my mother-in-law insisted on it and I wanted an easy life. Makes no difference to me, now I pay lip service to a church in Switzerland and to a temple in North East London.

rcs1000

With Boris’s conversion and Brexit, can we say that our leadership has gone from being in thrall to The Treaty of Rome, to The Bishop of Rome?

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

Congratulations.

kle4

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic

Our Prime Minister is catholic.

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

Like Henri IV of France, only substitute “shag” for “Paris”

I don't know, could also have been about a shag

On 25 July 1593, with the encouragement of his great love, Gabrielle d'Estrées, Henry permanently renounced Protestantism and converted to Catholicism — in order to secure his hold on the French crown, thereby earning the resentment of the Huguenots and his former ally Queen Elizabeth I of England. He was said to have declared that Paris vaut bien une messe ("Paris is well worth a mass"),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_France

MaxPB

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

kle4

rcs1000 said:

With Boris’s conversion and Brexit, can we say that our leadership has gone from being in thrall to The Treaty of Rome, to The Bishop of Rome?

I didn't know you wrote political slogans for the DUP in your spare time?

Carnyx

rcs1000 said:

With Boris’s conversion and Brexit, can we say that our leadership has gone from being in thrall to The Treaty of Rome, to The Bishop of Rome?

I do wonder what the DUP, or some of them, think of that.

Pagan2

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's

TheScreamingEagles

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.

Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

Congratulations.

To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.

Andy_JS

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

Young practitioners of religions today, other than Christianity and Judaism, tend to be more religious than their parents were in the 1960s and 1970s.

contrarian

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I think at this moment in time Afghanistan is the dominant issue and it will become more so over the next seven days and probably much longer

And as I posted at the end of the last thread this will maybe surprising to some



New

Press conference from the White House live

Biden has requested contingency plans if he has to extend from 31st August

And repeated again by his spokesperson

Lots of fudge in this conference

I suspect the thought of pictures of desperate people being held back as US troops fly away must haunt the White House



And Biden 'live' at 9.30

The questions over his ambiguity are going to be very interesting

The pictures of desperate people being held back as US troops fly away will be forgotten if we subsequently see pictures of Americans citizens left behind kneeling in orange overalls in front of men wearing masks.

I don't know if the Biden administration could survive that. I'm not sure any administration could.

Pagan2

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.

Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.

I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.

HYUFD

Andy_JS said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.

Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men

Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.

I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?

Mainly Muslims

Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.

Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't

I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.

But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist

Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources

British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.

Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.

I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.

On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.

If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...

Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population

It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?

Young practitioners of religions today, other than Christianity and Judaism, tend to be more religious than their parents were in the 1960s and 1970s.

And that probably applies for evangelical Christians too, it certainly often applies to young Muslims

contrarian

rcs1000 said:

With Boris’s conversion and Brexit, can we say that our leadership has gone from being in thrall to The Treaty of Rome, to The Bishop of Rome?

After this, you won't catch Boris bashing the Bishop...

MaxPB

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

Congratulations.

To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.

And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

Congratulations.

To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.

To think I felt smug today writing a report on an estoppel by convention.

turbotubbs

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

Personal experience clouds everything. I had the opposite experience to you. Clearly best in my class at school, sailed through the 11+ and had the young will have to play rugby’ talk with my parents. My grammar school was excellent. Now have a PhD and moderately successful career at university. And happy, which is the best bit...

kle4

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

Congratulations.

To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.

Talk about job pressure! Especially when so many things are out of your control.

stodge

MarqueeMark said:

Leavers aren't paralysed by June 23rd 2016.

But many Remainers seem to believe that the longer they sulk, the more likely they will get their EU back.

Bizarre.

I think, with respect and as someone who voted Leave, you are.

The undercurrent is one of continuous gloating, a continuous repetition of the mantra " we won, you lost".

Those who seek to ask questions and hold the Government to account are slapped down - I know you're a full supporter of the Government but not everyone who voted Leave is and the right to hold those who made promises about the future of the country after we left the EU is still there.

Simply describing anyone who dares to criticise as "sulking" doesn't help - might make you feel better, I suppose.

HYUFD

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

You went to a private school and an ex grammar comp anyway ie high performing schools, so you did not need a grammar.

If you are a bright pupil whose parents cannot afford private education and the only state secondary school in your area is a requires improvement or inadequate comp or academy your future may have turned out rather different

TheScreamingEagles

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.

Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.

I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.

I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.

I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.

Pagan2

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.

Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.

I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.

I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.

I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.

Just another form of bigotry sadly

IshmaelZ

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.

Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.

I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.

I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.

I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.

Did you show them the receipt?

Are you familiar with the work of Harry Enfield?

DavidL

Pagan2 said:

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's

I totally get that. My wife went to such a school. In one class she walked out to find somewhere else to study because kids were fighting on the desks and the teacher was unable to do anything about it. She got 4 modern studies classes in her entire school year. The rest was just crowd control from teachers who knew nothing about the subject. To make University from such a school at a time when only about 10% of the population went to University was an astonishing achievement, better than anything I have ever done. But then, she is a remarkable woman.

algarkirk

On the topic of the article, it seems to me we are seeing a particular situation, though it will be September/October before it will clarify further:

Boris is losing a degree of support, and his many failings mean that despite his genius in particular directions (not be be under estimated) there is much less Boris mania generally than there was.

Afghanistan. Brexit isn't a panacea. Covid means whoever is in charge is having a rough time because the nation is, and there is no enemy to unite against.

The particular situation we are in is that the star, Boris, is waning, but there is no prospect whatsoever of a new star anywhere in politics to take his place.

It's a bit like around 2005. Blair is on the wane but still winning elections because no-one else is any good.

The big effect of this is to make politics, for the moment, very very boring.

It will be interesting to see if Boris can recover. Not impossible.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.

Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.

I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.

I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.

I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.

Flash young lawyer in a sharp suit, eh? I'm picturing a young Gandhi.

Pagan2

DavidL said:

Pagan2 said:

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's

I totally get that. My wife went to such a school. In one class she walked out to find somewhere else to study because kids were fighting on the desks and the teacher was unable to do anything about it. She got 4 modern studies classes in her entire school year. The rest was just crowd control from teachers who knew nothing about the subject. To make University from such a school at a time when only about 10% of the population went to University was an astonishing achievement, better than anything I have ever done. But then, she is a remarkable woman.

I left school with basically no qualifactaitons then had to spend 3 years at 6 form as the first year was gaining the o levels I would have got

kjh

I don't know I take a thread full of flack on the last thread and the cavalry in the form of @rcs1000 , @DavidL , etc turn up on this thread after I have been pummeled. Still grateful, better late than never.

TheScreamingEagles

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.

Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.

I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.

I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.

I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.

Did you show them the receipt?


Are you familiar with the work of Harry Enfield?

Calm down!

No, future FIL talked about my vehicle with his neighbours, quite a few people came out to look at it and his neighbour knew the approximate list price of it and told him.

CorrectHorseBattery

Just upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year again, I'll have to re-mortgage my house at this rate

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pagan2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.

I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.

Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.

I used to be married to a Catholic.

I didn't need to convert.

Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).

My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.

Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.

I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.

I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.

I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.

Flash young lawyer in a sharp suit, eh? I'm picturing a young Gandhi.

More Gordon Gecko!

A boss of mine used to say that I was very good at drowning kittens which my FIL took to mean literally.

CorrectHorseBattery

@TheScreamingEagles you any good on residential property questions?

DavidL

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.

I went to private school and then a comprehensive that had recently been a grammar school instead. I got 6 highers in one year and left school at 16 to go to do an Honours law degree. Since then I have had a reasonably successful career in the law. This is my most recent work: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/serial-rapist-faces-life-sentence-after-attacking-three-women

It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.

Congratulations.

To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.

And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.

I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.

Pagan2

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Just upped my bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year again, I'll have to re-mortgage my house at this rate

Never bet what you cannot afford

TheScreamingEagles

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@TheScreamingEagles you any good on residential property questions?

No.

Benpointer

"Paypal are are introducing an additional service fee of 1.29% for some international commercial transactions between the EEA and the UK."

Another Brexit bonus 😬