I presumed it was going to be Palestine ReAction that did in Wes Streeting's office, but apparently not (although they are all the same group of people in all these groups),
Wes Streeting’s constituency office has been vandalised by “trans rage” protesters.
Windows at the Health Secretary’s Ilford North Office were smashed, and the words “child killer” daubed on the front in paint. Trans Bash Back, a “trans-led direct action project”, claimed they were responsible for the vandalism in a post on the social media platform BlueSky.
I presumed it was going to be Palestine ReAction that did in Wes Streeting's office, but apparently not (although they are all the same group of people in all these groups),
Wes Streeting’s constituency office has been vandalised by “trans rage” protesters.
Windows at the Health Secretary’s Ilford North Office were smashed, and the words “child killer” daubed on the front in paint. Trans Bash Back, a “trans-led direct action project”, claimed they were responsible for the vandalism in a post on the social media platform BlueSky.
I presumed it was going to be Palestine ReAction that did in Wes Streeting's office, but apparently not (although they are all the same group of people in all these groups),
Wes Streeting’s constituency office has been vandalised by “trans rage” protesters.
Windows at the Health Secretary’s Ilford North Office were smashed, and the words “child killer” daubed on the front in paint. Trans Bash Back, a “trans-led direct action project”, claimed they were responsible for the vandalism in a post on the social media platform BlueSky.
Just got an advert for a “special Christmas getaway” from a Cornish hotel. August 1st. A record?
Not at all. I received an invite for Christmas at Mingary Castle on (checks inbox) 27th January.
The charity shop I used to volunteer in a few years ago gets its xmas card supply sent from head office in August. Expected that the displays start from September.
The BLS was having more problems collating data because of all the DOGE cuts which means more revisions are likely . I look forward to the Trump groupies in here cheering on this decision to fire the head of the BLS and also look forward to hearing their thoughts if for example Starmer tried to pull a similar stunt …..
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
I don’t see anything as skin colour. The racists having conniptions because Mohammed is the number 1 boys name do.
I presumed it was going to be Palestine ReAction that did in Wes Streeting's office, but apparently not (although they are all the same group of people in all these groups),
Wes Streeting’s constituency office has been vandalised by “trans rage” protesters.
Windows at the Health Secretary’s Ilford North Office were smashed, and the words “child killer” daubed on the front in paint. Trans Bash Back, a “trans-led direct action project”, claimed they were responsible for the vandalism in a post on the social media platform BlueSky.
The BLS was having more problems collating data because of all the DOGE cuts which means more revisions are likely . I look forward to the Trump groupies in here cheering on this decision to fire the head of the BLS and also look forward to hearing their thoughts if for example Starmer tried to pull a similar stunt …..
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
I don’t see anything as skin colour. The racists having conniptions because Mohammed is the number 1 boys name do.
Humour me, if all the Muslim immigrants to the UK had hypothetically been replaced with Aussies and 50 years on the most singular popular name in the UK had been “Bruce”, every fucker calling their boy Bruce and we said, this isn’t on, you are killing wonderful British names like Nigel, Alfred, Edmund. If people just thought, hang on guys, you are just unable to leave your cultural background even after 50 years here, can’t you have a bit of imagination? Would that be an issue with those bronze skinned Aussie descendants or with the fact that people might think that people aren’t integrating with the culture?
I get that there are massive whopping racists who won’t be happy until we are all as white as St George (yeah I know) but there is a legitimate fear of the other which shouldn’t be dismissed in a catch all of “racism”.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
I don’t see anything as skin colour. The racists having conniptions because Mohammed is the number 1 boys name do.
Humour me, if all the Muslim immigrants to the UK had hypothetically been replaced with Aussies and 50 years on the most singular popular name in the UK had been “Bruce”, every fucker calling their boy Bruce and we said, this isn’t on, you are killing wonderful British names like Nigel, Alfred, Edmund. If people just thought, hang on guys, you are just unable to leave your cultural background even after 50 years here, can’t you have a bit of imagination? Would that be an issue with those bronze skinned Aussie descendants or with the fact that people might think that people aren’t integrating with the culture?
I get that there are massive whopping racists who won’t be happy until we are all as white as St George (yeah I know) but there is a legitimate fear of the other which shouldn’t be dismissed in a catch all of “racism”.
Would all those Aussies pass Norman Tebbit’s cricket test? If not, send them all home.
Its a weird report. It start with they made anti-Semitic comments, seems a bit OTT to stop the whole programme, but then there is talk of spreading Hamas propaganda, which sounds far worse.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
I don’t see anything as skin colour. The racists having conniptions because Mohammed is the number 1 boys name do.
Humour me, if all the Muslim immigrants to the UK had hypothetically been replaced with Aussies and 50 years on the most singular popular name in the UK had been “Bruce”, every fucker calling their boy Bruce and we said, this isn’t on, you are killing wonderful British names like Nigel, Alfred, Edmund. If people just thought, hang on guys, you are just unable to leave your cultural background even after 50 years here, can’t you have a bit of imagination? Would that be an issue with those bronze skinned Aussie descendants or with the fact that people might think that people aren’t integrating with the culture?
I get that there are massive whopping racists who won’t be happy until we are all as white as St George (yeah I know) but there is a legitimate fear of the other which shouldn’t be dismissed in a catch all of “racism”.
Would all those Aussies pass Norman Tebbit’s cricket test? If not, send them all home.
I would check their historic sandpaper purchases first, there’s a line that mustn’t be crossed.
"Donald Trump has said he will sack the head of the US’s labour statistics agency following a weak jobs report in a move that could fuel concerns that he is seeking to influence independent data tracking the world’s biggest economy."
"That could fuel concerns" is a fine example of both-sides journalism.
Who wrote that piece of craven analysis ?
3 and 1/2 more years of this shit.
At least.
No idea why the US stock market isn't properly reacting to all this insanity. NYSE is in a banana republic.
Its a weird report. It start with they made anti-Semitic comments, seems a bit OTT to stop the whole programme, but then there is talk of spreading Hamas propaganda, which sounds far worse.
Reading between the lines it sounds more like a pause than a cancellation.
I presumed it was going to be Palestine ReAction that did in Wes Streeting's office, but apparently not (although they are all the same group of people in all these groups),
Wes Streeting’s constituency office has been vandalised by “trans rage” protesters.
Windows at the Health Secretary’s Ilford North Office were smashed, and the words “child killer” daubed on the front in paint. Trans Bash Back, a “trans-led direct action project”, claimed they were responsible for the vandalism in a post on the social media platform BlueSky.
In the light of Trump's firing of the Labor Statistics chief who had the temerity to report Labor Statistics that the Dear Leader disliked, is there anyone who still believes that the votes cast at the mid-terms will be fairly and honestly counted?
I’ve been calling this for ages - America has gone.
No, it hasn't. Not quite.
But it is on the way, and if the GOP retain control of Congress in the midterms, then it will be a lot closer to being gone.
Democracies tend to be resilient; the habit is hard to break. Note even Hungary might just kick out Orban.
If the GOP retained Congress that would be as US voters wanted that, albeit unlikely on Trump's current approval rating.
Even Trump and Orban haven't yet scrapped elections and tried to impose military rule
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
Kemi is decrying her heritage by not acting as @RochdalePioneers thinks black people who have UK passports should act.
If @RochdalePioneers pioneers sees a Finnish immigrant embracing UK culture, I wonder what he sees. Does the Finn get through the gate?
Serious point here - I've had remembers of my family (first generation immigrants) comment that the Multiculturalism can come across as "You're not British. That's a club you can't join."
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
Interesting perspective - where's your nearest migrant hotel?
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
I don’t see anything as skin colour. The racists having conniptions because Mohammed is the number 1 boys name do.
Humour me, if all the Muslim immigrants to the UK had hypothetically been replaced with Aussies and 50 years on the most singular popular name in the UK had been “Bruce”, every fucker calling their boy Bruce and we said, this isn’t on, you are killing wonderful British names like Nigel, Alfred, Edmund. If people just thought, hang on guys, you are just unable to leave your cultural background even after 50 years here, can’t you have a bit of imagination? Would that be an issue with those bronze skinned Aussie descendants or with the fact that people might think that people aren’t integrating with the culture?
I get that there are massive whopping racists who won’t be happy until we are all as white as St George (yeah I know) but there is a legitimate fear of the other which shouldn’t be dismissed in a catch all of “racism”.
Some years ago, I pranked some right on types (some students and others) with a made up story about mass immigration from the USA (revival of mining in Wales). It was interesting how rapidly they became vehemently anti-immigration.
The BLS was having more problems collating data because of all the DOGE cuts which means more revisions are likely . I look forward to the Trump groupies in here cheering on this decision to fire the head of the BLS and also look forward to hearing their thoughts if for example Starmer tried to pull a similar stunt …..
I presumed it was going to be Palestine ReAction that did in Wes Streeting's office, but apparently not (although they are all the same group of people in all these groups),
Wes Streeting’s constituency office has been vandalised by “trans rage” protesters.
Windows at the Health Secretary’s Ilford North Office were smashed, and the words “child killer” daubed on the front in paint. Trans Bash Back, a “trans-led direct action project”, claimed they were responsible for the vandalism in a post on the social media platform BlueSky.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
I don’t see anything as skin colour. The racists having conniptions because Mohammed is the number 1 boys name do.
Humour me, if all the Muslim immigrants to the UK had hypothetically been replaced with Aussies and 50 years on the most singular popular name in the UK had been “Bruce”, every fucker calling their boy Bruce and we said, this isn’t on, you are killing wonderful British names like Nigel, Alfred, Edmund. If people just thought, hang on guys, you are just unable to leave your cultural background even after 50 years here, can’t you have a bit of imagination? Would that be an issue with those bronze skinned Aussie descendants or with the fact that people might think that people aren’t integrating with the culture?
I get that there are massive whopping racists who won’t be happy until we are all as white as St George (yeah I know) but there is a legitimate fear of the other which shouldn’t be dismissed in a catch all of “racism”.
Some years ago, I pranked some right on types (some students and others) with a made up story about mass immigration from the USA (revival of mining in Wales). It was interesting how rapidly they became vehemently anti-immigration.
Even before Trump anti-americanism was the acceptable face of xenophobia in the UK. A cynic might even suggest it's the root of some of the pro-europeanism.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
As opposed to Rishi and Olukemi? Beautiful British names.
In the light of Trump's firing of the Labor Statistics chief who had the temerity to report Labor Statistics that the Dear Leader disliked, is there anyone who still believes that the votes cast at the mid-terms will be fairly and honestly counted?
Mostly, yes? The president doesn't run the election or appoint the people who do.
Indeed: elections are done on a state by state basis. And voters (for some strange reason) seem to have a marked preference for making Democrats Secretaries of State (in purple states, at least).
There are three fundamental risks.
The first is that the Donald attempts to cancel the midterms altogether. That is a small risk, but is I guess possible.
The second is that there are significant efforts to manipulate the vote. This happens to some extent already, but I can see a high likelihood of attempts to stop people voting based on striking people off voter rolls, for example. T
The third is that State Governors and Supreme Courts throw out election results they don't like. That is the one that scares me, and the pressure from Donald Trump on (say) North Carolina to avoid them sending a Democrat to the Senate, on the basis of imagined fraud is going to be immense. This is the one that could easily escalate into civil war.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
More on those civil servant working class internships:
"If your parents were train drivers on £80k per year you qualify for government internships - which they now claim will be limited to just 'working class' kids.
You know what, instead of dividing and excluding (checks notes) kids who just want graduate jobs and a career against each other, why don’t we create robust hiring/intern practices that allow for equal opportunities and have due regard to social mobility? Crazy idea, I know.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
I don’t see anything as skin colour. The racists having conniptions because Mohammed is the number 1 boys name do.
Humour me, if all the Muslim immigrants to the UK had hypothetically been replaced with Aussies and 50 years on the most singular popular name in the UK had been “Bruce”, every fucker calling their boy Bruce and we said, this isn’t on, you are killing wonderful British names like Nigel, Alfred, Edmund. If people just thought, hang on guys, you are just unable to leave your cultural background even after 50 years here, can’t you have a bit of imagination? Would that be an issue with those bronze skinned Aussie descendants or with the fact that people might think that people aren’t integrating with the culture?
I get that there are massive whopping racists who won’t be happy until we are all as white as St George (yeah I know) but there is a legitimate fear of the other which shouldn’t be dismissed in a catch all of “racism”.
Some years ago, I pranked some right on types (some students and others) with a made up story about mass immigration from the USA (revival of mining in Wales). It was interesting how rapidly they became vehemently anti-immigration.
Were the right on types a group of Albanian taxi drivers, or were they eccentric millionaires?
In the light of Trump's firing of the Labor Statistics chief who had the temerity to report Labor Statistics that the Dear Leader disliked, is there anyone who still believes that the votes cast at the mid-terms will be fairly and honestly counted?
Mostly, yes? The president doesn't run the election or appoint the people who do.
Indeed: elections are done on a state by state basis. And voters (for some strange reason) seem to have a marked preference for making Democrats Secretaries of State (in purple states, at least).
There are three fundamental risks.
The first is that the Donald attempts to cancel the midterms altogether. That is a small risk, but is I guess possible.
The second is that there are significant efforts to manipulate the vote. This happens to some extent already, but I can see a high likelihood of attempts to stop people voting based on striking people off voter rolls, for example. T
The third is that State Governors and Supreme Courts throw out election results they don't like. That is the one that scares me, and the pressure from Donald Trump on (say) North Carolina to avoid them sending a Democrat to the Senate, on the basis of imagined fraud is going to be immense. This is the one that could easily escalate into civil war.
Does Trump really care about midterms? He wasn't that bothered in 2018 when Republican legislators lost their seats. Unless he is on the ballot he isn't bothered
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
"Your Own Personal Jesus, someone to hear your prayers, someone who cares"
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
We had a Jesus at a place I used to work. The poor guy had to spend a lot of his time explaining to everyone it was pronounced “Hez-Oos” rather than “Jeez-us”.
More on those civil servant working class internships:
"If your parents were train drivers on £80k per year you qualify for government internships - which they now claim will be limited to just 'working class' kids.
You know what, instead of dividing and excluding (checks notes) kids who just want graduate jobs and a career against each other, why don’t we create robust hiring/intern practices that allow for equal opportunities and have due regard to social mobility? Crazy idea, I know.
As the civil service fast stream has too many middle class professionals children apparently and too many Sir Humphreys
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
We had a Jesus at a place I used to work. The poor guy had to spend a lot of his time explaining to everyone it was pronounced “Hez-Oos” rather than “Jeez-us”.
So it wasn’t an appeal to the top Greek god? Hey, Zeus!
More on those civil servant working class internships:
"If your parents were train drivers on £80k per year you qualify for government internships - which they now claim will be limited to just 'working class' kids.
You know what, instead of dividing and excluding (checks notes) kids who just want graduate jobs and a career against each other, why don’t we create robust hiring/intern practices that allow for equal opportunities and have due regard to social mobility? Crazy idea, I know.
As the civil service fast stream has too many middle class professionals children apparently and too many Sir Humphreys
They would do well to look at the records. When was Britain most successful, when was our Civil Service optimum? Replicate that.
I sometimes reflect on my student days, late 1970s, when friends were widely dispersed and not only did we not have mobile phones, obviously, but we also didn't have landlines, and wonder how on earth we managed to organise the brilliant social life we had. I really can't remember how we managed to meet up in pub x at time y most nights, but we did, and it wasn't a problem at all at the time.
Same for me in the mid eighties. Basically you used your legs, went round to somone's house or prearranged meeting time at whatever venue you were heading for. Word of mouth and face to face contact plus a much greater commitment to actually turning up when something had been arranged.
I really can't remember how we organised stuff without the internet. For travel people used to use travel agents, but in the 70s I organised a 3 week drive around France with my girlfriend. I planned it myself. I don't know how I did it now. I don't think I booked anything except a ferry.
After I finished my O levels 3 16 year old mates and I cycled around Normandy camping for a fortnight. We booked the ferry and nothing else, just found campsites when we got tired. You don't really need to plan ahead with these things.
On my way back from New Zealand through SE Asia in 1990 Mrs Foxy and I back packed for 3 months, with nothing booked ahead apart from flights. We just caught bus and train, and when we got to a place there were always hostel touts. It shows the degree of trust that we would hop in a van at midnight to go to a hostel, but we never had any problems, indeed had a great time. You just need a bit of flexibility and faith that you will find somewhere to stay.
Sometimes the flexibility has gone away as it's no longer required and so is longer commonplace. A hundred years ago you could (I remember reading) walk into a village and ask in the pub to see if anyone in the village would put you up for the night for cash. I doubt you'd get much luck trying that now.
Watching old films it seemed common to tell a hotel desk clerk you'll be staying for a few nights, but you don't know how long. I'm not sure that works these days either. Perhaps it was only ever in the movies.
Absolutely not. It used to be normal to walk into a hotel and say you want to stay for a few days but you don't know how long.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Sophistry. Why is Kemi decrying her heritage? Because she wants to stop being Nigerian to the racists whose votes she wants to rely on. She will fail - racists only see colour.
How is Kemi decrying her heritage, btw no big fan of hers, disclaimer not because of her skin colour?
And sophistry is also nuance. If you see everything as being about skin colour then you will only get the wrong solutions.
I don’t see anything as skin colour. The racists having conniptions because Mohammed is the number 1 boys name do.
Humour me, if all the Muslim immigrants to the UK had hypothetically been replaced with Aussies and 50 years on the most singular popular name in the UK had been “Bruce”, every fucker calling their boy Bruce and we said, this isn’t on, you are killing wonderful British names like Nigel, Alfred, Edmund. If people just thought, hang on guys, you are just unable to leave your cultural background even after 50 years here, can’t you have a bit of imagination? Would that be an issue with those bronze skinned Aussie descendants or with the fact that people might think that people aren’t integrating with the culture?
I get that there are massive whopping racists who won’t be happy until we are all as white as St George (yeah I know) but there is a legitimate fear of the other which shouldn’t be dismissed in a catch all of “racism”.
Some years ago, I pranked some right on types (some students and others) with a made up story about mass immigration from the USA (revival of mining in Wales). It was interesting how rapidly they became vehemently anti-immigration.
Were the right on types a group of Albanian taxi drivers, or were they eccentric millionaires?
Just an average crowd in a pub in the City - think they were mix of grads at a bank and their student friends.
Im not sure why you'd be doubting - we had plenty of posters of PB declaring that when Mugabe was going after the farmers, that blocking the farmers entry into the UK was the right thing to do. One poster said that they would be "culturally incompatible with the UK" and so shouldn't be given asylum.
Part of the prank was ascribing religious fundamentalism to the fictional rednecks (of the type that is common in the US) - apparently that is really really bad.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
We had a Jesus at a place I used to work. The poor guy had to spend a lot of his time explaining to everyone it was pronounced “Hez-Oos” rather than “Jeez-us”.
I got it the other way around first time that I encountered the name as a child. "Hez-oos" was a friend of my father (a Spaniard), and it was some years later that I saw it written down and the penny dropped that it was spelt Jesus.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
"Your Own Personal Jesus, someone to hear your prayers, someone who cares"
That and THX1138 has sometimes come to mind when using an LLM for things :
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
You absolutely do give a crap about “how many people are called Mohammad” because if it was 15% of Britons, or 25% or 34% then that is not a Britain that any of us would recognise and which most Britons alive TODAY would fiercely resist
And yet the number of Mohammads keeps rising. As a proportion. Ergo there is a percentage of Mohammads on the horizon - if things continue as they are - where you would totally lose your crap
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
You absolutely do give a crap about “how many people are called Mohammad” because if it was 15% of Britons, or 25% or 34% then that is not a Britain that any of us would recognise and which most Britons alive TODAY would fiercely resist
And yet the number of Mohammads keeps rising. As a proportion. Ergo there is a percentage of Mohammads on the horizon - if things continue as they are - where you would totally lose your crap
Stop pretending
I don’t give a crap in the sense that I don’t care they are called Mohammed, it’s what is behind that naming is an issue which I think I ve been clear enough tonight I don’t accept or agree with.
I think it’s tragic they don’t have better names, Julian Bin Laden would have made things happen without bombs.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Typhoon is a FFSC (Full Flow Staged Combustion) Methane/Liquid Oxygen engine
FFSC is considered the Holy Grail of liquid engine designs - offers low weight and extremely high efficiency. The downside is fun things like pure oxygen at high temperature and extreme pressure.
Why is this interesting? - well, officially Europe's space future is Ariane 6. A lotto work has been put into killing, sidelining or slow walking alternatives. See the Themis project.
Typhoon is another attempt to go round the Ariane 6 blockage - build an engine and then offer rocket design based around it.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
You absolutely do give a crap about “how many people are called Mohammad” because if it was 15% of Britons, or 25% or 34% then that is not a Britain that any of us would recognise and which most Britons alive TODAY would fiercely resist
And yet the number of Mohammads keeps rising. As a proportion. Ergo there is a percentage of Mohammads on the horizon - if things continue as they are - where you would totally lose your crap
Stop pretending
I don’t give a crap in the sense that I don’t care they are called Mohammed, it’s what is behind that naming is an issue which I think I ve been clear enough tonight I don’t accept or agree with.
I think it’s tragic they don’t have better names, Julian Bin Laden would have made things happen without bombs.
I think you’re a polite public school Brit who is unwilling to be rude and has a fear of being a bit Tommy Robinson
But in the end we must all pick sides and we may have to tolerate some unpleasant comrades in arms. This is becoming a fight for western civilisation
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
nah islam and christianity are just two cheeks of the same arse - both can be more or less militant depending on prevailing fashions. choose your jihad or choose your crusade
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
nah islam and christianity are just two cheeks of the same arse - both can be more or less militant depending on prevailing fashions. choose your jihad or choose your crusade
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
I haven't called anyone here racist, nor said that concerns about immigration are entirely down to racism and stupidity.
I work in a city that is about 25% Muslim, so meet people from all social and ethnic backgrounds. My experiences of Muslims, asikhs, Hindus, African Christians etc are from direct contact. These people are not some invading alien blob to me, they are individual human beings, with similar hopes, fears, anxieties and issues as the rest of humanity.
One thing that does strike me is how eager people are to see foreign parts, observe interesting places of worship and rituals, eat unusual foods etc but fail to take an interest in mosque around the corner, the Orthodox synagogue that they drive past, the Afghan restaurant or the Indian sweet shop half a mile away. In London it's possible to see pretty much the whole of world culture by Underground, and in Leicester we are not far behind (though no Underground.
Get out there and mingle. These are hospitable cultures that are very welcoming to people who take a serious interest.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
I haven't called anyone here racist, nor said that concerns about immigration are entirely down to racism and stupidity.
I work in a city that is about 25% Muslim, so meet people from all social and ethnic backgrounds. My experiences of Muslims, asikhs, Hindus, African Christians etc are from direct contact. These people are not some invading alien blob to me, they are individual human beings, with similar hopes, fears, anxieties and issues as the rest of humanity.
One thing that does strike me is how eager people are to see foreign parts, observe interesting places of worship and rituals, eat unusual foods etc but fail to take an interest in mosque around the corner, the Orthodox synagogue that they drive past, the Afghan restaurant or the Indian sweet shop half a mile away. In London it's possible to see pretty much the whole of world culture by Underground, and in Leicester we are not far behind (though no Underground.
Get out there and mingle. These are hospitable cultures that are very welcoming to people who take a serious interest.
London - see 40 cultures in 4 miles. Also 40 seasons.
Anyway, on a lighter note, this song just came up on Spotify and it will forever remind me of my late father and probably the happiness and hope he and his friends had in the sixties about free love. I can never not love this song and the fucking hippies who loved it too.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
I haven't called anyone here racist, nor said that concerns about immigration are entirely down to racism and stupidity.
I work in a city that is about 25% Muslim, so meet people from all social and ethnic backgrounds. My experiences of Muslims, asikhs, Hindus, African Christians etc are from direct contact. These people are not some invading alien blob to me, they are individual human beings, with similar hopes, fears, anxieties and issues as the rest of humanity.
One thing that does strike me is how eager people are to see foreign parts, observe interesting places of worship and rituals, eat unusual foods etc but fail to take an interest in mosque around the corner, the Orthodox synagogue that they drive past, the Afghan restaurant or the Indian sweet shop half a mile away. In London it's possible to see pretty much the whole of world culture by Underground, and in Leicester we are not far behind (though no Underground.
Get out there and mingle. These are hospitable cultures that are very welcoming to people who take a serious interest.
Apologies foxy, I don’t mean to imply you had called anyone racist, I was generalising and you were caught up in it.i do definitely get out there and mingle and spend every day dealing with all the world has to offer in a certain way, blind to creed or colour.
Anyway, on a lighter note, this song just came up on Spotify and it will forever remind me of my late father and probably the happiness and hope he and his friends had in the sixties about free love. I can never not love this song and the fucking hippies who loved it too.
Anyway, on a lighter note, this song just came up on Spotify and it will forever remind me of my late father and probably the happiness and hope he and his friends had in the sixties about free love. I can never not love this song and the fucking hippies who loved it too.
I’ve told my sister there it’s on my funeral soundtrack along with Nightshift by the Commodores.
Its a great track. Worth adding to my "American Hippies" playlist.
I am a bit of an ageing hippie at heart.
It always makes me laugh thinking of my old man singing it in the shower with great gusto then strapping on a pinstripe suit and going into battle for “the man”.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
You absolutely do give a crap about “how many people are called Mohammad” because if it was 15% of Britons, or 25% or 34% then that is not a Britain that any of us would recognise and which most Britons alive TODAY would fiercely resist
And yet the number of Mohammads keeps rising. As a proportion. Ergo there is a percentage of Mohammads on the horizon - if things continue as they are - where you would totally lose your crap
Stop pretending
I don’t give a crap in the sense that I don’t care they are called Mohammed, it’s what is behind that naming is an issue which I think I ve been clear enough tonight I don’t accept or agree with.
I think it’s tragic they don’t have better names, Julian Bin Laden would have made things happen without bombs.
I think you’re a polite public school Brit who is unwilling to be rude and has a fear of being a bit Tommy Robinson
But in the end we must all pick sides and we may have to tolerate some unpleasant comrades in arms. This is becoming a fight for western civilisation
"Western civilisation" does not include the likes of "Tommy Robinson". What puzzles me, and which I think you are perhaps able to answer,, is why the extremely wealthy and influential such as Paul Marshall, the Barclay bros and Rupert Murdoch seek to co-opt bigots such as SYL in creating a bigoted mass movement? They're hugely wealthy, they can have the lifestyle they desire, why do they persist in ruining everyone else"s life and persecuting some in particular? To whit, what makes the such massive c....?
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
You absolutely do give a crap about “how many people are called Mohammad” because if it was 15% of Britons, or 25% or 34% then that is not a Britain that any of us would recognise and which most Britons alive TODAY would fiercely resist
And yet the number of Mohammads keeps rising. As a proportion. Ergo there is a percentage of Mohammads on the horizon - if things continue as they are - where you would totally lose your crap
Stop pretending
I don’t give a crap in the sense that I don’t care they are called Mohammed, it’s what is behind that naming is an issue which I think I ve been clear enough tonight I don’t accept or agree with.
I think it’s tragic they don’t have better names, Julian Bin Laden would have made things happen without bombs.
I think you’re a polite public school Brit who is unwilling to be rude and has a fear of being a bit Tommy Robinson
But in the end we must all pick sides and we may have to tolerate some unpleasant comrades in arms. This is becoming a fight for western civilisation
"Western civilisation" does not include the likes of "Tommy Robinson". What puzzles me, and which I think you are perhaps able to answer,, is why the extremely wealthy and influential such as Paul Marshall, the Barclay bros and Rupert Murdoch seek to co-opt bigots such as SYL in creating a bigoted mass movement? They're hugely wealthy, they can have the lifestyle they desire, why do they persist in ruining everyone else"s life and persecuting some in particular? To whit, what makes the such massive c....?
Why do you have such an obsession with Tommy Robinson types?
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
You absolutely do give a crap about “how many people are called Mohammad” because if it was 15% of Britons, or 25% or 34% then that is not a Britain that any of us would recognise and which most Britons alive TODAY would fiercely resist
And yet the number of Mohammads keeps rising. As a proportion. Ergo there is a percentage of Mohammads on the horizon - if things continue as they are - where you would totally lose your crap
Stop pretending
I don’t give a crap in the sense that I don’t care they are called Mohammed, it’s what is behind that naming is an issue which I think I ve been clear enough tonight I don’t accept or agree with.
I think it’s tragic they don’t have better names, Julian Bin Laden would have made things happen without bombs.
I think you’re a polite public school Brit who is unwilling to be rude and has a fear of being a bit Tommy Robinson
But in the end we must all pick sides and we may have to tolerate some unpleasant comrades in arms. This is becoming a fight for western civilisation
"Western civilisation" does not include the likes of "Tommy Robinson". What puzzles me, and which I think you are perhaps able to answer,, is why the extremely wealthy and influential such as Paul Marshall, the Barclay bros and Rupert Murdoch seek to co-opt bigots such as SYL in creating a bigoted mass movement? They're hugely wealthy, they can have the lifestyle they desire, why do they persist in ruining everyone else"s life and persecuting some in particular? To whit, what makes the such massive c....?
But one might just as well ask why so many wealthy and powerful individuals push woke, rewilding/greenery, anti-hate-speech, regulated economies, and many other things that I am sure you agree with - as they do. Why should they be permitted to push their (in my view) distopian vision of the future whilst those of an opposing view be happy with their money and shut up?
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is culture. At school nobody would have given a shit about the colour of Rishi’s skin, he was just another junior boy, but the Serbian guy I had to sit me most days but who weirdly looked as Skando/Aryian as I do was an abhorrent individual by his cultural views. Skin colour is an issue undoubtedly for a small amount of morons but the majority get more bent out of shape by cultural mores that are out of synch with the rest of society.
So, how do you assess the "culture" of someone you meet, other than by getting to know them and talking to them?
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
I don’t give a crap about lots of people being named Mohammed personally, but I do understand that a lot of the country do have issues, rightly or wrongly with it. What I do have a problem with is people writing off their concerns as racism or stupidity. I don’t jump to conclusions that people are racist because they worry about mass immigration and ciphers of that, such as large numbers of children being named the same for alien religious reasons.
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
You absolutely do give a crap about “how many people are called Mohammad” because if it was 15% of Britons, or 25% or 34% then that is not a Britain that any of us would recognise and which most Britons alive TODAY would fiercely resist
And yet the number of Mohammads keeps rising. As a proportion. Ergo there is a percentage of Mohammads on the horizon - if things continue as they are - where you would totally lose your crap
Stop pretending
I don’t give a crap in the sense that I don’t care they are called Mohammed, it’s what is behind that naming is an issue which I think I ve been clear enough tonight I don’t accept or agree with.
I think it’s tragic they don’t have better names, Julian Bin Laden would have made things happen without bombs.
I think you’re a polite public school Brit who is unwilling to be rude and has a fear of being a bit Tommy Robinson
But in the end we must all pick sides and we may have to tolerate some unpleasant comrades in arms. This is becoming a fight for western civilisation
"Western civilisation" does not include the likes of "Tommy Robinson". What puzzles me, and which I think you are perhaps able to answer,, is why the extremely wealthy and influential such as Paul Marshall, the Barclay bros and Rupert Murdoch seek to co-opt bigots such as SYL in creating a bigoted mass movement? They're hugely wealthy, they can have the lifestyle they desire, why do they persist in ruining everyone else"s life and persecuting some in particular? To whit, what makes the such massive c....?
Why do you have such an obsession with Tommy Robinson types?
Because it would be annoying if a cretinous thug like SYL had any impact on our country at all. Football hooligans should stay in goal.
The AI infrastructure build-out is so gigantic that in the past 6 months, it contributed more to the growth of the U.S. economy than /all of consumer spending/ The 'magnificent 7' spent more than $100 billion on data centers and the like in the past three months *alone*
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
Some of the excuses for the racism and displays of moronity have been interesting.
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
Some of the excuses for the racism and displays of moronity have been interesting.
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
The number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels was substantially down in the latest figures at 32 345 from a peak of over 50 000 under the last government.
These are a few months old so will have changed, but it is a demonstration of the government's poor communication strategy that such a drop barely features in the news.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
Well you could argue that they had their own versions of a reformation very early on.
Leon is at least correct in one thing, though, in that the two religions are pretty different - there's no New Testament in Islam. That makes any historical analogies more suspect.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t...
The Reformation saw millions killed for not accepting particular versions of Christianity.
And mockery was deployed extensively by each version against other ones, but it certainly wasn't 'accepted' by those it was deployed against. Indeed they were likely to kill for it.
Some of the excuses for the racism and displays of moronity have been interesting.
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
The number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels was substantially down in the latest figures at 32 345 from a peak of over 50 000 under the last government.
These are a few months old so will have changed, but it is a demonstration of the government's poor communication strategy that such a drop barely features in the news.
Indeed. I prefaced my original post by describing the “confected crisis” and was jumped on. But it is confected, and the stats prove it.
I just wish that racists would accept they are racists. What makes me actually giggle is that the thick racism morons on X all bang on about patriotism like they are supposedly the standard we’re supposed to be protecting.
Some of the excuses for the racism and displays of moronity have been interesting.
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
Good morning
This is still them v us when my view is we stop the boats, return those who should not be here, deal forcefully with anyone who abuses children and integrate with each other with less intolerance on all sides
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
Well you could argue that they had their own versions of a reformation very early on.
Leon is at least correct in one thing, though, in that the two religions are pretty different - there's no New Testament in Islam. That makes any historical analogies more suspect.
Though Judaism doesn't have a New Testament either, and the aspects of Christianity that ought to make us shudder did and do. Possession of the text is a lot less important than what you choose to do with that text.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
Well you could argue that they had their own versions of a reformation very early on.
Leon is at least correct in one thing, though, in that the two religions are pretty different - there's no New Testament in Islam. That makes any historical analogies more suspect.
One assumes our poundshop Alf Garnett is still out of it hungover, giving us at least a brief respite from his tiresome ignorance and bigotry.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
Well you could argue that they had their own versions of a reformation very early on.
Leon is at least correct in one thing, though, in that the two religions are pretty different - there's no New Testament in Islam. That makes any historical analogies more suspect.
One assumes our poundshop Alf Garnett is still out of it hungover, giving us at least a brief respite from his tiresome ignorance and bigotry.
Pound shop?
Over a fiver a week. Though subscription offers are available.
Some of the excuses for the racism and displays of moronity have been interesting.
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
Good morning
This is still them v us when my view is we stop the boats, return those who should not be here, deal forcefully with anyone who abuses children and integrate with each other with less intolerance on all sides
We all agree with that.
And yes, it is us vs them. The racist right are trying to incite a race war. And we’re calling them out.
Some of the excuses for the racism and displays of moronity have been interesting.
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
The number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels was substantially down in the latest figures at 32 345 from a peak of over 50 000 under the last government.
These are a few months old so will have changed, but it is a demonstration of the government's poor communication strategy that such a drop barely features in the news.
"The latest available data on the number of asylum seekers being housed in hotels covers up to the end of March 2025.
It shows that figure stood at 32,345 by the end of March 2025 (approximately 30% of all those in receipt of support)—meaning the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels is, as far as we know, approximately 9% higher than when Labour formed a government.
At the end of June 2024, just before Labour came into office, a total of 29,585 asylum seekers were being housed in contingency accommodation in hotels (approximately 29% of all asylum seekers in receipt of support from the government at that time).
We’ve asked the government how many asylum seekers are being housed in the 210 hotels in use as of July 2025, and will update this page if we receive a response."
Edit: I see what you mean: you're not saying a Labour drop, just a drop?
Some of the excuses for the racism and displays of moronity have been interesting.
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
Good morning
This is still them v us when my view is we stop the boats, return those who should not be here, deal forcefully with anyone who abuses children and integrate with each other with less intolerance on all sides
I don't think either side of this argument would disagree that governments of the last decade have done a pretty poor job of facilitating the integration of immigrants, who have arrived in historically unprecedented numbers.
It's probably true that the electoral prospects of Reform depend quite heavily on whether or not this government does a better job of addressing all that. Just being a bit less incompetent than the last lot won't be sufficient.
They were brilliant, dodgy moustaches, naff clothes , the sweeney , beer as cheap as chips , great music , just a wonderful time to be young and carefree.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
Well you could argue that they had their own versions of a reformation very early on.
Leon is at least correct in one thing, though, in that the two religions are pretty different - there's no New Testament in Islam. That makes any historical analogies more suspect.
Though Judaism doesn't have a New Testament either, and the aspects of Christianity that ought to make us shudder did and do. Possession of the text is a lot less important than what you choose to do with that text.
Oh, I absolutely agree with that. But that's an argument that cuts both ways.
Alongside liberal enlightened Judaism, there's a strain that looks increasingly like fundamentalist Islamism, and those two sides appear to be growing further apart.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
Well you could argue that they had their own versions of a reformation very early on.
Leon is at least correct in one thing, though, in that the two religions are pretty different - there's no New Testament in Islam. That makes any historical analogies more suspect.
Though Judaism doesn't have a New Testament either, and the aspects of Christianity that ought to make us shudder did and do. Possession of the text is a lot less important than what you choose to do with that text.
Yes, all religions evolve and continue to do so in order to understand and address new challenges. This is as true of the many strands of Islamic belief as it is for any other sect. The idea that Islam is monolithic and unchanging is simply not historically true, though the status of the Koran as the literal word of Allah creates a lot of inertia. While there are textual literalists in Christian and Jewish sects, there is also widespread disagreement of what books are holy canon and on how literally they are to be understood. Of course in all evolving ideas in religion and politics there are episodes of reaction and revivalism too.
It is also true that for most adherents religions are absorbed from cradle onwards as a cultural way of life without a great deal of textual analysis. Texts are only a small part of religious practice, something that converts often struggle with, it being much harder to get a grip on a lifetime of living it.
I would recommend this book on how younger Muslims around the world integrate a deeply held faith and with modernity. I don't agree with everything in it, but in is a useful insight.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
There are two very important splits in the UK, probably most places, those who hate others for their skin colour and those who hate those for their beliefs/ways of life.
Effectively racists v “culturalists”.
Rishi is as British as most of us here, possibly more so. Kemi too. A lot of British people will “accept” Rishi and Kemi because aspects of their background culture are so in the background but they “behave” like British people. So the same people who might hate a lot of the migrants with similar parental backgrounds give a pass.
There are those who won’t forgive Rishi and Kemi for their skin colour.
I think it’s understandable for people to fear and not like people who look “different” if they also have a very alien culture and feel they have to adapt to accommodate that culture. They do however not see that there are white “cultures” which are every bit as different to their preferred ideal white/british/ english concept of culture.
It’s not as simple as people hating migrants because of their skin colour. It’s a simplistic argument and reaction that doesn’t help solve the problem.
I’m not a fan of the “Jafaikan” culture that captured a lot of the young of the UK with the lingo, icons, attitudes etc. I don’t like those who subscribe regardless of their skin colour. I find it misogynistic and basic and want the young to look to a more aspirational and dare I say it “respectful” culture.
I would imagine that a lot of people who have irrational issues with Muslims in the UK from largely the Pakistani background wouldn’t have the same issue with Indonesian Muslims. It’s not as simple as skin colour or “the other”.
Exactly. It's not racial, it's cultural. People hardly notice skin colour. But people very much notice cultural differences. Like, for example, calling a child 'Mohammed'.
I do wonder if Rochdale would find it uncomfortable if a large slug of the population were calling their sons Jesus. Would they be classed with the American evangelical right? We naturally, culturally are suspicious of religion in the UK and so the large majority of a minority naming their sons after the top man in their religion is a bit “weird” and frankly unimaginative, like everyone calling their sons Charles after the head of the national religion would be.
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Jesus is a fairly common first name in Spain and Latin America.
Absolutely, and it’s part of a long culture which it isn’t here. Do you think the Spanish and South Americans are easy with the concept of noticeable parts of their population being named Mohammed though? I’m betting the polling wouldn’t be positive.
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
It really doesn't bother me at all. People don't get to choose their names, they are chosen by their parents, and it tells you nothing about how any particular Mohammad is in tune or not with British culture (not that this is homogeneous in any case).
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
It’s the old paradox, as the Nazis found. ‘All Jews must be eliminated’. ‘I agree, but my neighbour Hans, he’s a Jew but he’s a really good guy, Iron Cross from the war and everything’. People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
It is certainly true that immigrants are viewed very differently when they are friends, neighbours and workmates than in an abstract amorphous mass as depicted by the press.
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Islam - with a few rare exceptions - doesn’t do integration, you gibbering cretin
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
Until Islam has a reformation and accepts the individual’s right to accept Islam or not the. It cannot live easily side by side in countries like the UK. If it was a confident religion then it would accept mockery and argument but it doesn’t - look at the abuse @HYUFD gets here for his Christianity and ask if anyone would extend the same acceptance here to the same level of abuse of Islam.
There won’t be an Islamic reformation. I’m reading quite heavily about Islam at the moment - Tavira is a fascinating place to do it, the Islamic heritage is visible on the housing - and the more I read the more I realise that Reformation and Enlightenment just aren’t in the Islamic toolbox
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
Occasionally, when I’m very bored, I try and guesstimate where Islam is on the Christianity scale based on which Century in Europe pan Christianity they are. I’m thinking probably the early thrusts of Protestantism as there are Muslim countries that are relatively secular and whilst nominally Muslim they are a bit more open - Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia etc but still the majority are a bit fiercely popish.
The Reformation is interesting, as it actually marked an increase in fundamentalism - and triggered some of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has ever known.
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
I think it's very odd how everyone seems to think Islam is a monolithic block.
Well you could argue that they had their own versions of a reformation very early on.
Leon is at least correct in one thing, though, in that the two religions are pretty different - there's no New Testament in Islam. That makes any historical analogies more suspect.
Though Judaism doesn't have a New Testament either, and the aspects of Christianity that ought to make us shudder did and do. Possession of the text is a lot less important than what you choose to do with that text.
Oh, I absolutely agree with that. But that's an argument that cuts both ways.
Alongside liberal enlightened Judaism, there's a strain that looks increasingly like fundamentalist Islamism, and those two sides appear to be growing further apart.
Absolutely. And you can say the same for Christianity and Secular Western Values. Fundamentalists on every side seeing a chance to create a rumble.
Some of the excuses for the racism and displays of moronity have been interesting.
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
The number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels was substantially down in the latest figures at 32 345 from a peak of over 50 000 under the last government.
These are a few months old so will have changed, but it is a demonstration of the government's poor communication strategy that such a drop barely features in the news.
"The latest available data on the number of asylum seekers being housed in hotels covers up to the end of March 2025.
It shows that figure stood at 32,345 by the end of March 2025 (approximately 30% of all those in receipt of support)—meaning the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels is, as far as we know, approximately 9% higher than when Labour formed a government.
At the end of June 2024, just before Labour came into office, a total of 29,585 asylum seekers were being housed in contingency accommodation in hotels (approximately 29% of all asylum seekers in receipt of support from the government at that time).
We’ve asked the government how many asylum seekers are being housed in the 210 hotels in use as of July 2025, and will update this page if we receive a response."
Edit: I see what you mean: you're not saying a Labour drop, just a drop?
Yes, there is clearly a lot in common between this governments approach and the last one, not least because both have had to deal with actual reality. Its much easier sounding off in a saloon bar pint in hand than actually doing stuff.
All credit to those posters calling out the racists, though.
The confected “crisis” with migrants in hotels. It all comes down to skin colour. The confected crisis with Mohammed being the most popular boys name. It all comes down to skin colour.
I say bollox to that , it comes down to illegal immigrants swanning in here in taxi boats , put up in 4 * hotels, laptops, pocket money , phones , priority housing , etc etc all paid by people who have the square root of feck all after toiling all week. Aided and abetted by weak wishy washy pocket filling arseholes of politicians.
Comments
Until now, I have resisted, but I’m one of the few still alive to respond.
For those unable to view online, attached is my article in @Telegraph today.
https://x.com/kharveyproctor/status/1951325645213938180?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I complained.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yl7n42325o
I get that there are massive whopping racists who won’t be happy until we are all as white as St George (yeah I know) but there is a legitimate fear of the other which shouldn’t be dismissed in a catch all of “racism”.
Even Trump and Orban haven't yet scrapped elections and tried to impose military rule
If @RochdalePioneers pioneers sees a Finnish immigrant embracing UK culture, I wonder what he sees. Does the Finn get through the gate?
Serious point here - I've had remembers of my family (first generation immigrants) comment that the Multiculturalism can come across as "You're not British. That's a club you can't join."
https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/the-old-democratic-party-doesnt-fit
Acyn
@Acyn
·
11m
Trump on weak jobs report: We’re doing so well—I believe the numbers were phony so I fired her.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1951391478002929756
A free pass is given which would be raising eyebrows if Brits were naming their children after a cult leader. Not cool when in 2567 2.9% of new borns are called David Koresh Smith.
Beautiful British names.
There are three fundamental risks.
The first is that the Donald attempts to cancel the midterms altogether. That is a small risk, but is I guess possible.
The second is that there are significant efforts to manipulate the vote. This happens to some extent already, but I can see a high likelihood of attempts to stop people voting based on striking people off voter rolls, for example. T
The third is that State Governors and Supreme Courts throw out election results they don't like. That is the one that scares me, and the pressure from Donald Trump on (say) North Carolina to avoid them sending a Democrat to the Senate, on the basis of imagined fraud is going to be immense. This is the one that could easily escalate into civil war.
"Trump redeploys nuclear submarines after ex-Russia leader’s menacing tweet | Donald Trump | The Guardian" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/01/trump-nuclear-submarines-russia-ukraine
We have loads of James, David’s, Edwards, Chardonnays, but when one section of society chooses a name, for very identifiably different reasons to the general culture of the country, you can surely understand why a good slug of the population feel uncomfortable? It’s sad that they are uncomfortable but if you criticise from some superior, de haut en bas, you are idiot plebs perspective then you just reinforce the belief that their concerns don’t matter which breeds division. To tar anyone feeling uncomfortable as racist is wrong and arrogant.
I note that many WWC British football fans are quite keen on Mo Salah for example.
Im not sure why you'd be doubting - we had plenty of posters of PB declaring that when Mugabe was going after the farmers, that blocking the farmers entry into the UK was the right thing to do. One poster said that they would be "culturally incompatible with the UK" and so shouldn't be given asylum.
Part of the prank was ascribing religious fundamentalism to the fictional rednecks (of the type that is common in the US) - apparently that is really really bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno
People fear the mass but befriend the individuals.
It really is about culture though. Islam dominates the lives of the faithful in a way that has vanished in a supposedly Christian country like the U.K. That, and the misogeny of many Muslims (or at least a different relative status for men and women than most in the U.K.).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0YkPnwoYyE
The failure of integration (where it exists-and it is obviously not universal) is as much down to people not integrating with Muslims as much as the other way. Its a two way street.
A bit like we were discussing earlier with reference to hospitality to strangers: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" KJV Exodus 22:21
Or do you just jump to conclusions because they were named Mohammad by their parents decades before?
How can you “integrate” with a religion that believes it is inevitably superior, that it must always conquer, and that non Muslims shall only be suffered to exist if they pay a special tax (and really non Muslims should essentially be killed or chased away)
You can’t integrate with that, and Islam on a large scale cannot be integrated into Europe, if we want Europe to remain recognisably European. Thats it. That’s all there is to it
Everything else is cowardice and cant
You are a good person, you seriously and clearly have your heart in the right place and are very bright but I think you have a blind spot to massive concerns that many have because they see a different set of immigrants to those you see, who are say, doctors, nurses, professionals.
We have privileged lives and are generally exposed to the best of immigration but a lot of people aren’t. It’s easy to dismiss concerns as racism etc which is the same level of simplicity as a lot of racist views are.
And yet the number of Mohammads keeps rising. As a proportion. Ergo there is a percentage of Mohammads on the horizon - if things continue as they are - where you would totally lose your crap
Stop pretending
I think it’s tragic they don’t have better names, Julian Bin Laden would have made things happen without bombs.
The Koran is either all true or it isn’t. The word is far more important in Islam than it ever was in Christianity
What we can maybe hope for is a decline in faith (Iran exhibits this) and yet in western and other countries Muslims seem to be getting MORE devout
The advance of technology will be a test for Islam, however
https://europeanspaceflight.com/the-exploration-company-tests-key-component-of-typhoon-rocket-engine/
Typhoon is a FFSC (Full Flow Staged Combustion) Methane/Liquid Oxygen engine
FFSC is considered the Holy Grail of liquid engine designs - offers low weight and extremely high efficiency. The downside is fun things like pure oxygen at high temperature and extreme pressure.
Why is this interesting? - well, officially Europe's space future is Ariane 6. A lotto work has been put into killing, sidelining or slow walking alternatives. See the Themis project.
Typhoon is another attempt to go round the Ariane 6 blockage - build an engine and then offer rocket design based around it.
But in the end we must all pick sides and we may have to tolerate some unpleasant comrades in arms. This is becoming a fight for western civilisation
I work in a city that is about 25% Muslim, so meet people from all social and ethnic backgrounds. My experiences of Muslims, asikhs, Hindus, African Christians etc are from direct contact. These people are not some invading alien blob to me, they are individual human beings, with similar hopes, fears, anxieties and issues as the rest of humanity.
One thing that does strike me is how eager people are to see foreign parts, observe interesting places of worship and rituals, eat unusual foods etc but fail to take an interest in mosque around the corner, the Orthodox synagogue that they drive past, the Afghan restaurant or the Indian sweet shop half a mile away. In London it's possible to see pretty much the whole of world culture by Underground, and in Leicester we are not far behind (though no Underground.
Get out there and mingle. These are hospitable cultures that are very welcoming to people who take a serious interest.
Anyway, on a lighter note, this song just came up on Spotify and it will forever remind me of my late father and probably the happiness and hope he and his friends had in the sixties about free love. I can never not love this song and the fucking hippies who loved it too.
https://open.spotify.com/track/77qBwefBIdzymXNCuAI8YX?si=yUz46kuaRHOLokY4TFeXUA&context=spotify:playlist:0RzKKdFWvr4tqPD66XpO7w
I’ve told my sister there it’s on my funeral soundtrack along with Nightshift by the Commodores.
I am a bit of an ageing hippie at heart.
What puzzles me, and which I think you are perhaps able to answer,, is why the extremely wealthy and influential such as Paul Marshall, the Barclay bros and Rupert Murdoch seek to co-opt bigots such as SYL in creating a bigoted mass movement? They're hugely wealthy, they can have the lifestyle they desire, why do they persist in ruining everyone else"s life and persecuting some in particular?
To whit, what makes the such massive c....?
Is a 'reformation' actually necessary for an enlightenment ? Is there much else other than historical consensus and temporal sequence which genuinely justifies that view ?
We have a demographic problem in our country - not enough babies. The solution to one small part of the population having slightly more babies than the majority is not pitchforked mobs - it’s to have more babies.
As for “where is my nearest asylum hostel”. Growing up in Rochdale - which like Foxy’s Leicester has a very sizable Asian population - did give me an understanding of all of this.
Best comment was Leon claiming that Muslims do not integrate. Anyone want to tell TSE?
People really do need to to choose a side. Are they on the side of the racism thick as mince yobs? Ot the side of reason?
On the reason side we want to reduce the boat crossings to zero and stop the idiot use of hotels to store people. On the pig ignorant racist scum side the latest FUKer MP suggestion is tents on a disused airbase. But last time disused airbases were suggested by the Tory government actual Tory ministers with the airbase in their patch went mad.
Apparently they don’t want the fuzzy wussies there whether they are in tents or anything. And certainly don’t want the “they’re not from round here” rent a mob pig ignorant racists who aren’t from round there bussed in.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2l2rn487ko
These are a few months old so will have changed, but it is a demonstration of the government's poor communication strategy that such a drop barely features in the news.
Leon is at least correct in one thing, though, in that the two religions are pretty different - there's no New Testament in Islam.
That makes any historical analogies more suspect.
And mockery was deployed extensively by each version against other ones, but it certainly wasn't 'accepted' by those it was deployed against. Indeed they were likely to kill for it.
I just wish that racists would accept they are racists. What makes me actually giggle is that the thick racism morons on X all bang on about patriotism like they are supposedly the standard we’re supposed to be protecting.
This is still them v us when my view is we stop the boats, return those who should not be here, deal forcefully with anyone who abuses children and integrate with each other with less intolerance on all sides
Over a fiver a week. Though subscription offers are available.
And yes, it is us vs them. The racist right are trying to incite a race war. And we’re calling them out.
https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/asylum-hotels/
"The latest available data on the number of asylum seekers being housed in hotels covers up to the end of March 2025.
It shows that figure stood at 32,345 by the end of March 2025 (approximately 30% of all those in receipt of support)—meaning the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels is, as far as we know, approximately 9% higher than when Labour formed a government.
At the end of June 2024, just before Labour came into office, a total of 29,585 asylum seekers were being housed in contingency accommodation in hotels (approximately 29% of all asylum seekers in receipt of support from the government at that time).
We’ve asked the government how many asylum seekers are being housed in the 210 hotels in use as of July 2025, and will update this page if we receive a response."
Edit: I see what you mean: you're not saying a Labour drop, just a drop?
It's probably true that the electoral prospects of Reform depend quite heavily on whether or not this government does a better job of addressing all that.
Just being a bit less incompetent than the last lot won't be sufficient.
But that's an argument that cuts both ways.
Alongside liberal enlightened Judaism, there's a strain that looks increasingly like fundamentalist Islamism, and those two sides appear to be growing further apart.
It is also true that for most adherents religions are absorbed from cradle onwards as a cultural way of life without a great deal of textual analysis. Texts are only a small part of religious practice, something that converts often struggle with, it being much harder to get a grip on a lifetime of living it.
I would recommend this book on how younger Muslims around the world integrate a deeply held faith and with modernity. I don't agree with everything in it, but in is a useful insight.
https://amzn.eu/d/gxawqp5