UKC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10838786/Trojan-...

In reply to stroppygob:

Absolutely appalling. Uncontrolled immigration as practiced by Labour has done untold damage to this country.

In reply to Gordonbp:

Seems to me that this has more to do with current education policy rather than past immigration policy. We've have substantial immigration from very many countries and cultures for many decades without schools feeling like they could get away with horrific practices like this.

In reply to stroppygob:
" the device was then taken, without her permission, to a shop for its passcode to be broken, and its contents unlocked and examined by the school."


It all sounds very unpleasant but this makes me wonder about the reporting. What reception do you reckon you would get at Carphonewarehouse if you produced a phone that wasn't yours and asked for its code to be broken? Can these codes even be broken at shops?

In reply to MG:

If the phone shop was a backstreet unlocking shop run by another upstanding pillar of the same community as the 'teachers' respbsible then I doubt it would raise an eyebrow, no.

On many phones, security is pretty much a token thing.

In reply to stroppygob:

This is what happens when you allow state funding for schools with religion. One view would say they're following their convictions, as their religion requires. The Christians used to be like this but they are weak and feeble and waning into the 21st century.

The whole think is appalling. Evidence continues to mount and inaction follows. Perhaps the RIPA violations alleged here will see prison sentences. That doesn't make up for suspending someone just before exams.

Ban a penny of state funding or tax relief on schools with any religious links and watch this malodeous barbarians fall.

In reply to wintertree:

My local "corner shop" run by a pillar of the aforementioned community has signs up all over the counter advertising "Phones Unlocked - no questions". He has also been prosecuted for selling illegal alcohol and has hardcore porn by the shelfload, some people have a strange definition of pillar of the community.

In reply to Clarence:

But unlocking is different to breaking codes, isn't it?

In reply to MG:

It is but the "no questions" indicates that he doesn't need to know where the phone has come from.

In reply to Clarence:

Fair point.

In reply to Gordonbp:


A) What makes you think this has anything to do with immigration?
B) Why would a story about schools with a strong religious ethos make you think the story is about immigration?
C) Assuming you think the story is about south Asian immigrants, why would you think their immigration was uncontrolled?
D) Do the know the parties involved personally? Who was the Prime Minister when they immigrated?
E) I guess you must be very tired today Nigel.

In reply to The New NickB:


These sorts of silly questions are what make people vote UKIP. This story was, as noted by the school governor, about an Islamic inspired school imposing Islamic ideals on the pupils. Islam is only practised in the UK as a result of immigration. You can argue whether immigration has been good or not and whether there should be Islamic or other religious schools but you can't pretend this school and these practices are not an effect of immigration.

In reply to The New NickB:
So Nick, can we take it you approve of phones being hacked to provide proof of the scourge of kids dating, you agree with gender separation, (girls to the back, natch,) and the imposition of religious strictures within British schools?

I never took you for someone with anti-female, pro-religious views, before .

In reply to MG:

Everything that happens in this country is a result of immigration to some degree. My family name would suggest immigration some time after 1066.

The issue here is about religious control of schools, an issue that isn't exclusively or even primarily an issue with the religion in the story.

The interesting thing of course, South Asian immigration is very much controlled.

In reply to stroppygob:


Maybe I'm being slow, but could you explain the chain of reasoning that gets you to that conclusion from Nick's post?

In reply to stroppygob:


I think even the most one eyed observer would struggle to deduct that from my post. I am very strongly against all those things.


You would be correct.

In reply to The New NickB:

I would say that the scale of immigration is irrelevant to this issue. It's a red herring that is being widely abused by people with other vested interests.

The two issues it exposes - to me - are

1) the lack of cultural integration in this country, which is something that intersects with immigration. Certainly if recent generations of immigrants had been more integrated things would have been different - the forces of darkness from the grotty unpleasant basement of Islam would not be able to exercise so much power. It seems madness to me that we're slowly excising the forces of darkness from Christianity's basements only to have another one take over.

Wanting to see integration is very different to wanting to see an end to immigration, and often gets one accused of racisim. Which is ironic as the lack of integration often reflects poverty in some incomer communities, and the most powerful force to shared cultural values is the eradication of that poverty by truly welcoming everyone in to the community without discrimination and on a level playing field.

2) the presence of buffoons in government who believe passionately in religion and aren't listening to the rising calls for a secular state, including education. That is the start of the problem, compounded by ineffective governance, that allows rot like this to set in. As long as our law is rooted in the dark ages, our institutions will follow.

In reply to The New NickB:

I was just wondering why, despite posting your questions, you declined to comment on the subject of debate.

So we can take it you are agaisnt Islamification of the school mentioned, and of schools in general?

In reply to stroppygob:


I considered a response to Gordon's point more salient.


I am an atheist who wants to live in a secular state where people have religious freedom, children are not considered to belong to a religion until they are adults and old enough to make that decision themselves.

Take from that what you will.

In reply to The New NickB:

I'll take it that that is a very politic answer.

In reply to stroppygob:


It very obviously isn't. Anyway, enough about me. I am sure you want to debate your OP.

In reply to The New NickB:

No much to debate really. I find religious influence in schools abhorrent, and the medieval backwardness of Islam perniciously so. That we tolerate these sort of things going on in UK schools is an anathema to me.

Mind you, Aus is just as bad

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/14/budget-it-will-be-chaplains-no...

In reply to john arran:


Well said, and patiently too.

It is highly likely that the immigrants in question came over in the 60s to build our economy, people who came over during the last economic boom under New Labour won't yet be in a position to be running schools.

The problem is obviously education policy and the wonderful new freedoms for religious plonkers to do what the f^ck they like without the oppressive state making sure that what they do isn't ludicrous and harmful.

If ever there was an argument for central control in education, this is it. Blaming it on immigration won't wash. OK, given the average Tory voter, it probably will. Oh god.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Except that these freedoms are not "new", we've always religious groups being allowed a lot of control over schools handed over to them.


Except that "central control" is also heavily pro-religion at the moment.

In reply to wintertree:




People often talk about the "failure of multiculturalism" and wanting "more integration", and I'd generally agree that a society where people from different ethnic / religious / social / whatever backgrounds are more mixed and less separated is a better society to live in. But what specific policies would you expect a government to pursue to achieve this? I've always viewed the alternative to multiculturalism as being a sort of Logan's Run-like world where everyone wears the same beige jumpsuits, or possibly a legal requirement to wear a bowler hat and moan about the weather at least twice a week, but presumably someone's got a better idea than that?

I'll give you a secular education system and the eradication of poverty without any argument, fwiw.

Also, it's probably an irrelevant aside, but does anyone else find it hilarious that ethnic minorities are now being told that we've changed our minds and actually their problem is NOT moving in next door and marrying our sisters?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


This is an argument for local education authority control of schools rather than central control of schools. Whitehall & Gove are too remote.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So what has the free school policy achieved then? I thought it allowed anyone with the wherewithal to grab a share of the resources to teach whatever bollocks they saw fit?


Too much so yes, but the DfE and LEAs are hardly run by religious nuts, they're entirely secular organisations, so it's rather a moot point.

In reply to elsewhere:


Yes I agree, the LEAs are crucial in the structure but it still has strategic policy set in the centre with local policy further out.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

If I knew that, I'd be running for government. I really don't know. We live in a society where people can and should structure their private and cultural life as they wish, within specific legal bounds - if someone doesn't want to integrate, nobody should make them.

If our education system promoted equality, kindness and fairness then I would hope that everything else falls in to place, with those values dragging up the various cultures to a common bar, where appropriate. That's as far as I care about integration.

All I can imagine is trying to raise the next generation to view everyone as equal, and to bring the full force of the law down on those of older generations who threaten this by promoting difference and segregation. Wishy washy thinking

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Except in the past we've not had to confront the effects of the medieval backwardness of the followers of Islam doing the sort of stunts in the OP, have we?

In reply to wintertree:



Supposing those of the younger generations promote difference and segregation. Are you an ageist??

In reply to Jon Stewart:


The free-school policy does give schools greater freedoms, but then we've always had "faith" schools with a religious group imposing a religious ethos. Some "Jewish" and "Catholic" state schools (though not all) have long been pretty run on a narrow religious ethos. The difference now is that some Islamic groups are trying to do what the Jews and Catholics have long done, and people are not liking it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Fair point. I feel very sorry for the kids involved here, but there is maybe some greater good in throwing the utter incompatibility of education and religion into sharp relief.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Only if suggesting that schools are able to shape the morals of young people is ageist. To change the views of adults who have no mandated contact with the state is very hard, without trampling on their freedoms.

Also I am suggesting that children need to be protected from bigotry - of all types - and one of the ways to do this is to hold adults who seek to poisen them legally accountable.

Is suggesting that the law views, and applies, differently to children than to adults ageist?

My nonexistent god. Please save us from those who seek to be offended on everyone's behalf. They will be the end of us.

In reply to wintertree:


So you agree that we should bring the full force of the law down on those of younger generations who threaten this (the view that everyone is equal) by promoting difference and segregation?

In reply to stroppygob:


As Coel points out, I reckon the Jews could give the Muslims a good run for their money, with the Catholics following close behind.

In reply to stroppygob:

Weird, as I understand the law my daughter's (all over 16) and my wife for that matter can prosecut me if they find me looking at their messages on their phone, but according to this their teachers can ?

If I were the girl I would prosecute the school and the shop concerned I think the law IS on her side.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You seem to be stuck on one form of words and not interested in my actual opinion.

For what it's worth, if members of the younger generation (school children in my example, in case you missed that) were actively promoting inequality and segregation then yes, the law should intervene. Undoubtedly it would handle such an offence from a child differently to an adult. Children can occupy very few positions of power from which to promote segregation over others, so this straw man is not likely to be seen very often.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, younger people are continuing to take their social and moral queues from older people, as they have done since the dawn of time, and as they are likely to continue doing. Or are you suggesting that children are running schools in which the adults are being illegally spied upon, segregated and indoctrinated into divisive, segregating beliefs?

Can you identify the problem with me suggesting that we should strive to teach equality and fairness in our schools, and that adults who abuse their position to do otherwise should not face consequences?

In reply to Jim C:


"Staff at Park View said the mother of the girl whose phone was confiscated had reported the incident to the police. The interception of private text messages is illegal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which was used to convict phone hackers from the closed News of the World newspaper."

In reply to stroppygob:

The teacher that carried out these acts has no place in a State school. She should be immediately suspended and ( hopefully) rapidly dismissed. The same treatment should be administered to her school hierarchy if they were aware of her actions and condoned them.

There is no place in the State education system for faith schools. The majority of the population no longer have much need of religious belief and a proposition in this sense-put to a referendum- would probably be be victorious.

If people want to have their offspring indoctrinated, it shouldn't be in the State educational system. I try my best to be tolerant, but when I see actions such as these I cannot help but despise the retarded idiots that still need to have their lives governed by events that supposedly took place over two thousand years ago.

In reply to wintertree:


I wouldn't confine the definition of "younger generation" to schoolchildren. I would include teenagers and young adults. These generations, although not necessarily in positions of power, are often the most fanatical and hence perfectly willing to and capable of promoting whatever it is they like to promote. It's generally not 50 year olds running off to truing camps in Pakistan or to war in Syria.

They may have originally taken their cues from older people but makes them no less dangerous.


No, but I think it's important to outlaw ageism along with all such 'isms on UKC and think you should be much more careful with your wording.

In reply to stroppygob:


No, but we have long had to and long failed to deal with similar behaviour from other religious organisations.

In reply to Postmanpat:
...

Perhaps that is why I was more careful with my wording in my OP. Quoting myself:


I said next generation. Not "younger". It seems abundantly clear that this was referring to those of school age.

You seem to be looking for a fight - from a high horse - with a chip on your shoulder. It doesn't really matter what language someone uses if someone else wants to look past their intent to find some discrimination that is not there. If you are so clear in how I am wrong you could have clearly explained that in response several posts back.

By the way, does ageism encompass the drawing of generalisations based on age? Because all I have done is use words you disagree with (by seeking to interpret them differently, perhaps) to say that children should be protected from adults, where as someone else has said...

In reply to wintertree:




Yes, and then "older", hence I asked you on your views about treatment of the "younger" generation.


Me, looking for a fight? I'm outraged. "Methinks thou doth protest too much".


No, especially if they are true.

In reply to MG:


which is almost all controlled... making gordons point nonsensical..

In reply to Postmanpat:


Then is there a problem with my generalisation that the next generation (school age in my OP) are developmentally influenced by older people?

Actually unlike your generalisation mine is bordering on a statement of fact about how schools and indeed civilisation operates. The young learn from those older - a good thing too otherwise we'd have no society and no civilisation. That those who are older have a responsibility to the younger (again school age) is beyond reasonable question.

Suggesting the law acts where this responsibility is breached by those - older than the children - is not ageist. Period. Yes I did not state children need protecting from children, but that is a different issue.

The thing about age and ageism is that there are vast, real changes in status - legal, physical and mental - with age. If I allude to this I am ageist? Is the state ageist for seeking to protect children from vices of some older people such as alcohol and smoking ageist?

I never said all older people are evil and that kids need protecting from them. We have the luxury of an imprecise language that can be twisted to mean almost anything. We could all write in logical axioms instead. I would rather not.

In reply to MG:


So is Christianity...

In reply to Deviant:



You may not think so.. but there is...

Lets be careful, many kids may not get any education, be home schooled, without such schools..

In reply to tlm:



Well firstly not really. It was more conversion of the existing population. And secondly, I think we can all distinguish between historic immigration, which presumably caused ructions at the time, and more recent immigration where the effects are still being felt.

In reply to IainRUK:

These schools don't sound much better than that alternative.

In reply to FreshSlate:

I dont know but any education is better than none, but as usual with any immigration thread there is a lot of ignorance on this thread...

In reply to MG:


By who?



Hmmm... the difference being it affects you, rather than someone else?

We're all immigrants if you go back a few generations, aren't we?

In reply to IainRUK:


I don't think that that's an argument for "faith" schools. With a robust inspection system for home-schooling, the number of pupils who would lose out would be small. It may be "many" on a counting system of 1, 2, 3, many, but it would still be small numbers.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

'Faith' schools still provide good educations though, " There is no place in the State education system for faith schools."

Which there is.. as long as they teach the NC and are assessed then there is a place.. people may disagree with them but tbh as long as they teach a full curriculum I'm happy with faith schools.

But I suspect its these more extreme faith schools who's pupils we would lose from the system, most kids in christian schools would be schooled whether faith schools were allowed or not.

In reply to Gordonbp:


First mosque in the UK: 1889.
Creation of Labour Party: 1900.

In reply to tlm:

That's one difference.


Few?? The point is we can't pretend the sort of situation in the OP is nothing to do with recent immigration. It clearly is. Whether overall we have benefited from this immigration or not is another matter.

In reply to MG:



Which is controlled..

In reply to MG:


It's the result of a whole load of complicated stuff, or which immigration is a part, but not the only part.

This thread does seem rather full of sweeping generalizations, simplifications and unwarranted leaps of faulty reasoning... Muslims are just people at the end of the day, rather like you or I.

In reply to IainRUK:


Very loosely until recently but that doesn't affect my point, which is that pretending immigration has no or minimal effect on society is playing in to the hands of the likes of UKIP and the BNP.

In reply to tlm:

Muslims are just people at the end of the day, rather like you or I.

Well not really (and I'm not just referring the Muslims here). There are pretty fundamental differences in outlook between different cultures and religions. When it works, mixing these has brilliant results, as in parts of the USA. When it doesn't, the result are terrible, as in other parts of the USA.

In reply to MG:


But no one has ever pretended that, have they? I think most people, from all parts of the political spectrum, understand immigration has changed society. It's changed the UK a lot because people want to live here which you must admit says something good about our economy, our institutions and our culture. Clearly, N Korea hasn't changed much due to immigration, and the Congo only changes cos people are desperate to leave the place...

In reply to MG:



Goodness! I can see why you are expressing the views that you do! It's strange, because I have known kind Muslims and selfish Muslims, intelligent, stupid, liberal, conservative, animal loving, animal hating, feminist, sexist, fundamental, not very religious - in fact all sorts of Muslims.

So I'm interested to find out in which ways they are different from any other group of people?

I've met Christians who read the message as being an eye for an eye, and others who read it as turn the other cheek....

I've met atheists of all sorts! Dogmatic atheists, liberal atheists and atheists who just can't be bothered to think too deeply.

You appear to live in a neatly segregated world.

In reply to MG:

No I think immigration is hugely positive... a huge impact on society..

I dont think its very loosely at all, we opened up in the 1950's because we needed labour..

I just know, having gone through the process 3 times how expensive and drawn out it is.

This time alone I've paid around $5000, plus have been unable to work since March 1st.. so probably around $15,000 is the total cost of me immigrating so far and I reckon I've another $1000 in fees alone, plus however long it takes for my EAD to arrive, which should just be two weeks...

The decision to migrate isn't an easy one and from non-EU countries it has been controlled for a long time. You have to go back 50 years, the only immigration which was easy was from those countries who gave out british passports.. but its been controlled tightly for many decades.

Here people are amazed when they find out how much I am paying because I have a yank wife, but they don't realise, like in the UK, being married doesn't remove the costs and the time spans involved. Its a huge expensive process and is far from uncontrolled..

In reply to tlm:


I assume you are being deliberately awkward here. Do *really* not notice huge differences in culture? If so, have a read of this for starters.

http://www.economist.com/news/business-books-quarterly/21587760-why-culture...

In reply to MG:


Okay, I am God, get over your surprise at the sudden revelation of my divine being, but I'm going to offer you a bargain. A created universe, just for you. I'll make a modern Britain, without all the immigration.

Just one thing. You'll be eating 1950s food. For ever. That's right no olive oil, no hummous, no chicken tikka massala, no MacDonalds (hey, just so you know the deal, right?) yadda yadda yadda.

Oh yeah, and no Aliesha Dixon.

Your ready for it?

In reply to IainRUK:


Fine, I tend to agree, but others don't. Their views shouldn't be dismissed or the obvious real effects ignored, which is what I read questions A and B from NickB above as trying to do.

In reply to seankenny:
As a deity, you really should stop jumping to conclusions and read what I have written (or simply divine what I think).

In reply to MG:


I understand what you are saying. That different cultures exist in the world and that assuming everyone is the same is a recipe for disaster.

I am saying that about a quarter of the world are muslims and that they aren't one homogeneous mass, so by behaving as though they were is to do exactly what the article talks about and to ignore differences in culture.

I've known muslims who I, as a very definite atheist, have far more in common with culturally than I do with some other atheists.

I'm not saying that everyone is identical - but that we are all the same in being individuals, in being motivated by the things we love, in wanting to have better lives and by all sharing most of our genetics and evolution. We are all human, with human motivations.

In reply to MG:

I'm guessing that the schools in question have been set up by Muslims who've been living in the UK quite some time, probably born here, which is how they know how to navigate the bureaucracy to set them up. (There's another point about second generation piety which is probably pertinent... but let's not go into that now.)

If someone's born here, they are not an immigrant. I think we can be clear about that. So this becomes a story of British people using the systems developed by British politicians to educate British kids, in a way that I and probably all of us on this thread dislike, in varying degrees.

Unless of course you see it as primarily a story about weird foreign brown people, and that's what you really want to talk about, those people who aren't really British because they follow a different Middle Eastern sky god religion to the one which shaped our country.

In reply to MG:


My human avatar is pleased to have yanked your chain. My divine side is supremely unbothered by what you think.

In reply to seankenny:


But I think many people tend to minimise any cultural differences, are very reluctant to acknowledge negative aspects of other cultures which have become established in the UK, and are pathologically incapable of criticising such aspects. I think there must be various aspects which feed into this behaviour, one of which is a fear of being accused of the worst sin that it is possible to commit by a right thinking person in 2014 Britain: racism.

In reply to tlm:
Obviously you can't say "he is a Muslim and therefore thinks x,y and z". What you can say is that people from say South Korea, as a whole, have a distinct culture to those from Northern Ireland. You only have to step off a plane to know this. It follows that mixing two cultures such as these will have effects - good or bad depending on the situation and how things are managed.

It really should be possible to point this out without being told you regard the world as neatly segregated boxes or that you oppose all forms of immigration and all the other nonsense above.

In reply to seankenny:
My divine side is supremely unbothered by what you think.

Carry on talking to yourself then - perhaps quietly elsewhere.

In reply to tlm:



One of the things religions such as Islam, but certainly also Christianity, are most successful at is undermining or sublimating basic human motivations such as the desire to reproduce (endless sexual restrictions) , the desire for a better life (blessed are the poor) etc. If this life is just a veil of tears, a place to wipe your feet before the next, much better, life begins, it is so much less valuable.

In reply to MG:

I think this sort of pretend, selective blindness to cultural difference means one is literally unable to make judgments on the relative merits of each culture. Thereby you can escape even the possibility of holding 'racist' views.

In reply to MG:


Now that, I would completely agree with.

In reply to ChrisBrooke:


...but humans are also quite good at then subverting the message of their religions. Witness all the catholics who now use contraception, or the muslims who smoke dope....

In reply to tlm:


Which is something I've never quite understood. Why stick with the religion in the face of such obvious cognitive dissonance? Or rather, as a former Christian who got sick of being held to unrealistic, daft, anti-human standards, I understand it all too well.

In reply to stroppygob:

I do get somewhat amused by situations like this which force the uber-PC to have to rank the minorities they are the self-appointed defenders of.

It seems that women are behind ethnic minorities in the pecking order.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Strange strange post.. Like the use of uber... I'm not sure I'm PC at all.. Just see a lot of shit posted about immigrants which is from a totally uneducated stand point... Check out the immigration acts to see how much what Gordon said was just bullshit.. Undeniably just ignorant bullshit

In reply to Submit to Gravity:



Your not that stupid surely.

In reply to IainRUK:

I wasn't referring to your or your post, and I don't agree with what Gordon said.

In reply to The New NickB:

You're*

Clearly I am.

In reply to The New NickB:

How is that stupid?

In reply to marsbar:


Well it is seeing something in this thread at least that doesn't exist.

In reply to The New NickB:

I didn't reference this thread - I was thinking more generally, but in specific the thread where Bruce got flamed for criticizing Islam and its insistence on women wearing the veil. He was told that it was the women's own choice (whereas women earning lots of money exposing their breasts are being exploited, not making a choice). I read a really good article about the phenomenon recently (I mean the one whereby the causes conflict and people have to start adopting contradictory positions when choosing which one to support) - I'll try to find it.

It's noticeable how reticent certain people are to unequivocally condemn the actions of the school in this incident - they still have to find ways of arguing about it.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

It's even more noticeable how a story which illustrates so beautifully what happens when you give the freedom to carry out vital societal functions to any old retard - they f^ck it up beyond belief.

The issue here is not immigration - the world would not look how it does now without immigration so that's not worth debating, and tighter immigration controls in the last decade would not have influenced this story. It's a monumental f^ck up of education policy and a reminder to all those who think that "giving power to local communities" and "putting localism at the heart of public services" and of course "the big society" are good ideas that local communities are full of f^cking retards, be they black, white, christian, muslim or whatever.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Agreed.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Perhaps you should have posted on that thread and not this one totally out of context.


Who would that be.

In reply to The New NickB:

Not entirely out of context now, was it?

In reply to The New NickB:
To be fair you can see how you saying you were "very strongly against" phones being hacked to provide proof of the scourge of kids dating, gender separation, and the imposition of religious strictures within British schools could easily be interpreted as you being reticent to unequivocally condemn those things by someone with a big enough axe to grind...

Otherwise I'm not sure.

In reply to seankenny:


Methinks Gordonbp, would do well to read "bloody Foreigners"

"Bloody Foreigners Book by Robert Winder
Immigration is one of the most important stories of modern British life, yet it has been happening since Caesar first landed in 53 BC. Ever since the first Roman, Saxon, Jute and Dane leaped off a boat we have been a mongrel nation. ... "

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Who said I was talking about him?! He just starting arguing with my original point by calling me stupid.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Except it is and you explicitly said it wasn't about this thread.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Who were you talking about then? I've just skimmed through the thread and I couldn't find anyone even beginning to defend the school in question...

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


I have asked already, but who? The statement was definately stupid in the context of this thread.

In reply to The New NickB:

Why then did people start by defending immigration, downplaying the role of Islam etc and not by condemning the actions and how they adversely affect women? The thread where Bruce got a hard time was simply a better example.

I'm sorry if my not sticking solely within the confines of the thread title has offended you; I shall try to improve my posting discipline in future.

In reply to The New NickB:

I suppose the lack of a question mark threw me. The irony of being called stupid by someone who can't spell or use correct punctuation is not lost on me by the way.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


It was more about the absence of condemnation and the choice to argue about peripherals.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Totally agree.

Children's education is not the place for the fcktards to play.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I totally condem the schools actions in this case. Obviously out of order assuming that the report is accurate. How can the school justify suspension for having a relationship, never mind the illegal actions.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


I tend to worry about making my point rather than the odd spelling and punctuation error, but I will happy do my best for you in future. Now when it comes to making a point, you seem rather muddled.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


So who are you talking about? You seem confused.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Erm, Bruce didn't get "flamed" - he was just engaging in an argument. At no point did anyone except Bruce claim that Islam "insists" on women wearing the veil, because, erm, it doesn't.


>He was told that it was the women's own choice (whereas women earning lots of money exposing their breasts are being exploited, not making a choice).

I really don't remember any discussion of women doing topless modelling on that thread.


I think you'll find that plenty of people wrote that the school's actions were wrong, but that it was nothing to do with immigration.

In reply to seankenny:


In your opinion he didn't get flamed; it looked like it to me. It's an interesting point though, because the way posters on here who post anything even remotely different from your world view are treated by you and others is so hectoring it's almost like bullying. I would guess that you and I are very similar in our view, but even so I dislike the way people with even slightly differing views have their arguments stifled. This sort of quelling of debate and shouting-down of anyone with anything but the one correct view of the world is probably one of the reasons why UKIP are doing so well, which is not, IMO, a good thing.

I introduced topless modelling as it demonstrates the contradictory positions taken by people when faced with the difficulty of choosing to support Islam, as was done on that thread, or to support women's rights. I'm willing to bet that if there was a thread about page 3, the same people stating that Islamic women wearing the veil was purely personal choice and nothing to do with the way they'd been conditioned by a patriarchal society, would be saying that the women were being exploited by a patriarchal society.


Rather lukewarm and half-hearted wasn't it? Compared to the vigour with which Bruce was "debated" on the other thread.

In reply to seankenny:




>one except Bruce claim that Islam "insists" on women wearing the veil, because, erm, it doesn't.

Well it does actually. Not all strands but some. Pretending. otherwise. is silly



No you're quite right. Of course we would have Islamic doctrine being enforced in schools without Islamic immigration. Two quite unconnected phenomena.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


. This sort of quelling of debate and shouting-down of anyone with anything but the one correct view of the world is probably one of the reasons why UKIP are do

Exactly. Particularly when all sorts of unpleasant views are instantly attributed to anyone who even points out immigration has effects, as in this thread.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Stiffing argument is exactly what your comment was about.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

It was a vigorous debate, and imho Bruce struggles with debate. He likes to proclaim, regardless of evidence. I see him as quite the Castro figure It's probably a function of age, and I guess that rigidity will come to me too one day.



No, it's called arguing. If you can't stand the heat...


Okay, since when is debate being stifled? Engaging with people in argument is the very essence of debate. Stifling debate is sending the cops round when you don't like what people have posted on Twitter, and I can't think who engages in that sort of behaviour.

More broadly than UKC, is debate really stifled? What about Melanie Philips, who's been warning us all of the dangers of Islam and immigration from the Daily Mail, one of the most popular newspapers in the UK. Mr Farage has made, how many - a dozen? - appearances on Question Time.
etc etc

This whole "we can't talk about immigration so UKIP are doing well" line doesn't bear a moment's scrutiny. UKIP are doing well for a complex bunch of reasons, but mostly it's to do with economic problems and mass disengagement with electoral politics mixing with the xenophobia a lot of people have.




I don't think you'll find people were "supporting Islam" - rather supporting the rights of Muslim women to wear what they wanted. Two different things, no?


Start a thread about it and see then?

More seriously, I remember writing something along the lines of that whilst a woman wearing the veil *could* be as a result of parental pressure or other sorts of nasty patriarchy, that most certainly wasn't always the case. Bruce argued for a less nuanced description of reality.

In reply to MG:



Couldn't agree more - given as Muslims don't have the equivalent of a Pope. So the best we can say is "some Muslims believe women should wear the veil and others don't", which is different both in semantics and practice to "Islam insists women are veiled". If we're going to discuss something, might as well be accurate, right?




As I said, the people running these schools were almost certainly born in Britain. Therefore not immigrants. Maybe their parents were, but are you going to blame anything I do wrong on "Irish immigration" because my ancestors came from there?

In reply to seankenny:

While talking of stifling debate I was referring to UKC. Your perception of it and mine are completely different. I think you and a few others choke-off discussion, so yes, people get worn down by it, decide they don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen and you have not influenced their views one bit - if anything being told by you or anyone else what to think makes people want to think the opposite. You may think you've won the debate but you haven't, because you've changed nothing. You've just worn them down and by doing so, you've stifled the debate. That's just my view and perception of it.

I agree with your analysis of UKIP's popularity - but I believe there is also an element of people finding being able to voice concerns about immigration etc refreshing, they want to discuss it without being shouted down as racists. They should, in my opinion, be able to make their voice heard, even if you, or indeed I, don't agree with them.

In reply to stroppygob:

I was shocked to read the information quoted in the original post.

When I saw the thread title I thought you were about to tell us that Jimmy Saville was one of your school governors, or about some pretty fag being sh499ed by a prefect, so imagine my surprise when I discovered that Muslim teenagers like sex. F3ck! Do you think that's why there are 1.6 billon of them?

Yes, let's clean up this rot but let's not forget all the home-grown rot at the same time. The damage done by religion in schools in many parts of the UK is immense. The French have got it right. Until we take the same stance on religion and schools we haven't a leg to stand on with much of this stuff.

In reply to seankenny:

Are you entirely. incapable. of thinking of this other than in terms. of blame and prejudice?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Its the ignorance of it though, many of the population still think islam and immigration are tightly linked.. it's now a similar number of generations to many US families but they still are not talked about as immigrants...

There is just so much misinformation out there on immigration, how many, where from, how easy it is to immigrate...

Anti-immigration and racism do often go hand in hand, UKIP is a great example of that. I think you can be anti-immigration and not a racist but I've not met many who are also educated on UK immigration policy.

Gordon's rant above is a classic example..

In reply to seankenny:


Aren't you being a bit pedantic? The term "second-generation immigrant" is widely used for British-born children of non-British immigrant parents. MG is entirely right to point out that post-war immigration into Britain and the marked increase in the number of Muslims in the UK are strongly liked.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Come on.. you are a scientist? it's third generation now.. at least...

1950's/60's was when we initially opened up immigration. Uncontrolled immigration from the commonwealth was closed at various points in the 1960's and 70's..

With the high fertility rate, often young age of marrying, to think we are still seeing a second generation to non-brit parents is odd.

In reply to The New NickB:


Examples?

In reply to stroppygob:


There are hundreds, but how about Catholic Brothers of various flavours as a starting point.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well yes, of course immigration over the last 50 years is directly responsible for the rise in the number of Muslims living in the UK. But I very strongly suspect that the people behind this were British religious nutjobs and, as has been pointed out above, those in government that enabled them in their nutjobbery.

After the Halal post now that... not sure what your obsession is with Muslim stuff stroppy.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:



Interesting isn't it? Should a British person says something "sexist", witness the castigation of some UKIP idiots here, they would be sh@t on from a great height.

However as this is an Islamic school, ALL religions must be castigated. Some here have visibly shied away from saying anything negative about the actual examples given.

Very telling.

In reply to The New NickB:

Hundreds? Feel free to post one then.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yawn... Do you think the events outlined in the OP should be allowed in UK Schools ROM?

In reply to stroppygob:

Google is your friend. I'm in the pub, on my phone. It's sad enough that I am posting at all.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Hold on, I'm not telling anyone what to think at all. Merely putting forward an argument for or against a particular point, or pointing out that what they're saying doesn't make sense. I don't attribute my indulging in arguments such as this to anything as worthy as changing people's minds. I just like a good bust-up.

Also, I find that people such as Gordonbp aren't up for debate. They just want to get something off their chest.



People have being voicing their concerns about immigration for my entire life. Enoch Powell, Mrs T and her "people being swamped" comments, right through to the whole "bogus asylum seeker" scares of the 2000s. Again, this whole "we can't talk about it" line is complete rubbish, when you think about it.

I am fine with people voicing their concerns (ain't that big of me?), but I'm also aware of the evils of letting bigotry run riot (and for sure, all that "Muslims go home and I wouldn't live next door to a Romanian" stuff is bigotry pure and simple). I don't have any easy answers for this.

In reply to The New NickB:

Agreed. Go enjoy your pint. Have one for me.

In reply to stroppygob:


More fictitious really.

In reply to stroppygob:

I'm not sure.. as always you take one side..

I do think its complex though, we want the kids being educated, some parents will only allow their kids to attend faith schools.. which is one debate in itself.. on top of that Islam, like many religions.. is very sexist.. but unless we can slowly integrate we just isolate. If we force all schools as secular then we end up with man out of the education system.

I'm not defending whats going on. But sadly this was distracted into an immigration debate. The issue is about inclusion.. which I dont think is as minor as is suggested.

Its going to be pretty hard to deal with this issue but I don't think the stick approach or 'send them home' are the way it will work. The likes of UKIP and the more extreme parties like BF or the BNP just create fear.. prevent people from fully joining the rest of society and will just make these issues more of a problem.

In reply to stroppygob:

Obviously not, and they are not. We are still not sure what is your point in the OP.

In reply to stroppygob:


No, but simple banning them won't be the answer..

In reply to stroppygob:




But lots of people have said it's awful. It *is* awful. I hate being forced into an obvious denunciation but hey ho. Anyhow, the reason we are castigating all religions is that this about faith schools being given too much freedom by the current government, which is one reason why this problem exists.

In reply to seankenny:

Isn't it more a case of A faith school overstepping some hard fought for rights, and the norms of UK society?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Rogers, the newly installed (£180K a year!) Chief Exec of Birmingham City Council has been keen to justify policy in terms of 'New Communities', which means newly immigrant, so if the well paid professionals are defending their actions by referencing immigration, how can it not be 'worth debating'?

Muslims have been campaigning for state islamic schools for over 30 years now, they were rejected in the Swann Report (1985), the first Trojan Horse example was a muslim headmistress who said she was ousted 20 years ago, the Ousely Report into segregation in Bradford although overshadowed by the riots in 2001 had been in preparation since 1999, one of our local schools was the subject of an attempted takeover by a local imam more than 10 years ago (the LEA stepped in and kicked him out). The Woking case (£407,000 compo paid to the Headteacher) kicked off in 2006.

Two reports on muslim education, the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism's "Muslims on Education" (2004) and the MCB's "Meeting the Needs of Muslim Pupils in State Schools" (2007)demand muslim faith schools, FAIR wants muslim majority state schools to be given islamic status (in fact they talk of just 2 types of schools, muslim majority and muslim minority).

IBERR a small group involved in Bradford schools used to have as it's one of it's aims:

The rapid rise in the number of English medium Muslim Schools has witnessed the emergence of new and exciting approaches to give education an Islamic perspective or to “Islamise” the provision of educational services.

They took it down but cached versions are available.

After the Meersbrook case in Sheffield (2008) the spokesman for the National Association of Head Teachers on race and cultural issues, Tim Benson said

"The problem is white teachers are very scared of doing or saying the wrong thing, which is the worst thing you can do because these things need to be discussed."

These cases span decades and different education policies, to say it's about education policy and not immigration, race, religion and identity politics is to completely and utterly miss the point. It denudes the public debate and leaves teachers, pupils, parents to be victims of that bigotry.

In reply to seankenny:

Its the classical debate though, a liberal free education system can be great, you get some great schools away from the mainstream but then you get this.. but people also oppose a centralised controlling government.

I think we'll end up losing kids from the education system if we take a heavy handed approach

In reply to RomTheBear:


Is that the royal "we" ROM, or who else do you claim to speak for?

In reply to IainRUK:


Islamic schools like the "free" bit, but aren't keen on the "liberal" part.

In reply to stroppygob:

That's the US version of liberal though, many republicans believe themselves to very liberal, which they mean as small government, basically their right to discriminate and do what is right for them..

The democrats are seen as big government, interfering and meddling..

I do think this needs to be acted upon but it needs to be slowly slowly.. banning faith schools isn't the answer for me.

In reply to stroppygob:



So is it a single school, or all Islamic schools that are the problem? You seem undecided.

Anyhow, I await your posts about the evils of Catholic kiddy fiddlers with interest.

In reply to IainRUK:

Gender apartheid has no place in British schools Iain, no excuses.

In reply to IainRUK:


Afraid I disagree there completely Iain. Schooling should be a secular business. Ignoring Muslims for a while (perish the thought what with them being 5% of the population or whatever), I always feel the whole "pushy parents discover church to get their kids into a fancy school" rather degrades everyone concerned, and teaches the kids that any institution is worth subverting if it gets you ahead. It's deeply disrespectful.

In reply to dek:


This is Britain, we prefer to divide by class and wealth.

In reply to stroppygob:


Would you prefer it if everyone said, "bloody muslims, can't stand them. First the suicide bombings, now this"


No I don't think so, seems to me it's been explicitly condemned all round.


Not really. People try to respond to the underlying issue, rather just reacting to the single case. So rather than people saying "bloody muslims" they seem to have said "bloody immigrants" (misguidedly as that's not the issue here), "bloody religion in schools" (which certainly is the issue), or "bloody education policy" (likewise). It often seems that you just want to gauge a reaction rather than have a discussion of the issues.

In reply to dek:

How do you stop it though? I do agree, I just think we ban faith schools we see home schooling where it will happen anyway..

In reply to seankenny:

I agree with that.. but I think parents should have a say in their kids education. As long as the school taught a proper curriculum, science as science.. genetics, evolution, geology etc.. I'm OK with faith schools..

But do agree this twisting it to get into the 'better schools' isn't great. But rather than tackle faith schools I think we should tackle school standards so there is less variability in standards.

In reply to winhill:




Thanks for the interesting background.

Except the difference is (as I understand it, happy to be corrected if wrong), that under previous governments the LEAs had more power - hence the failure of your local imam. The point surely is that it's an issue *now* - a real live issue rather than a potential problem/opportunity (delete as appropriate) because of changes in policy which give religious groups more power to open schools.

If it were an immigration issue then stopping immigration from certain countries would stop the problem, right? Except clearly immigration from South Asia, Africa, etc is already very very tightly controlled, and even if it were stopped completely, the problem would continue.

I'm not sure how it's a race issue but it very clearly is a religious issue. Just that in to me, there are people in all religious traditions who will f**k around with kids for their own ideals. The issue then becomes one of policy, oversight, etc, which has been a problem with the whole free-school movement in the first place it seems...

In reply to IainRUK:


If you polled most parents they'd get rid of algebra and teach kids how to write cheques.


Would you be comfortable with an Islamis school refusing to teach music or art?



Yes, and one way of improving standards is to get middle class kids and their parents fully involved in the state system.

In reply to winhill:


I'm not really sure what this means. Of course Birmingham council has policies that relate to immigrant communities - are these policies relating to the school or just general stuff?


Which is my point, sorry if I wasn't clear. Immigration policy in the past is absolutely at the root of all this, but because it's in the past, it's not worth debating. Should we have let all those muslims in? Well, we wanted the labour, and now they live here. I think we'll have to deal with that.

Non-EU immigration is now essentially shut down, although much of it that still happens can't be controlled because it's through marriage (and students). EU immigration/leaving the EU for that reason is the relevant policy now on immigration, not Pakistanis and other muslims.


So if there's no relevant debate to be had about immigration policy now, then what is the debate that you think we should be having? What is the point that I'm missing? How to deal with muslims who want Islamic education? Easy, tell them to shut the f^ck up, the whole system's secular and if they don't like that they can swivel. Oh wait a minute...

In reply to seankenny:




No not at all, I just think there are some things which are better changed through education over legislation.. I think if we shut such schools down, only allowed schools with ideals which suit the majority of the UK population we'd just lose these kids..

I don't like it, just think a heavy handed approach may not be the way here..

Obviously not a good situation its just how you get to what you want and I'm not convinced a heavy handed response will work.

In reply to IainRUK:

The "Christian Home Educators" in the USA do make me sympathise with your view, but then again I wonder if those kids would be just as failed if they went to a state funded god school and then went home to their parents for some Jesus with their fries.

I'd be interested to see if home schooling is a higher fraction in a comparable, but secular, country such as France,

In reply to seankenny:


No the school is the same as before, not an Academy or Free School. In theory the parent governors should be outnumbered by people who know what they're doing but if the community governors are on-side and the LEA governor is on-side then the parents can attempt a takeover. In the Woking case it was the LEA appointed governor who was the main trouble maker! (the judge stopped just short of accusing him of harassment).


It's not necessarily particular countries, it's the demographics of people from those countries. I don't think anyone expected that muslims would outnumber other groups from the sub-continent for example (8 to 1 IIRC).

Identity politics is all about numbers, that's why FAIR talks of majority/minority schools, the issue for immigration policy is how to deal with those politics.


Many of these cases involve allegations of racism, hence the quote above from the NAHT. In the Meersbrook case (and Woking) (and Bradford) the Headteacher resigned amid allegations of racism. If you don't resign and some council wonk decides you have been racist then it's gross misconduct.

In the case involving my local school the head left quickly after, who wants to work in that sort of toxic environment?

In reply to seankenny:

Well now Sean, I started a thread on events at a single school. Have a look who broadened it to all faith schools, (hint, it wasn't me.) So no, I'm not undecided.


If you wish to start a thread on that disgusting and entirely unrelated matter, there's nothing stopping you doing so. I will happily join in. (Hint, I find that one of the greatest betrayals of trust, and another reason religion is an anathema to any thinking person.)

In reply to stroppygob:


I'm not sure how it is unrelated.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Rogers was speaking specifically about the schools involved in Trojan Horse (not the school in the OP, that is an academy and not under their control).

I wouldn't be surprised if the Trojan Horse saga starts and ends with muslim headteachers, the first case it cites is a muslim headteacher and one school it mentions, Adderley is already under police investigation for some bizarre allegation of faked resignation letters (details are scant, how can you get rid of someone by faking a resignation letter?) but the headteacher there is another muslim, Rizvana Darr:

At a meeting on Thursday attended by about a hundred heads and deputy heads, a number, including Rizvana Darr, the Muslim head of Adderley School who has been targeted by the plotters, attacked the council for ignoring their complaints.

“Bore tried to downplay it and [Ms Darr] got up and said she had had no help whatever from the local authority,” said one person who was present. “The NAHT [head teachers’ union] rep also said there was a serious problem. Everyone who spoke said there was a problem.”

Bore is Sir Albert Bore, the leader of the City Council.

Rogers and Bore are expecting a drubbing when the DfE produces it's report, even possibly breaking up the council's functions. Their current stance seems to be selectively supporting some parts of the New Communities whilst neglecting others.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27429977

In reply to Jon Stewart:


No Jon, I don't need you to turn into a drama queen, why not try being rational?

In reply to The New NickB:
Sexual abuse in Catholic schools is in no way related to the imposition of Islamic religious mores in other schools.

Sexual abuse is very different, I'm shocked you do not understand that. Do you think it is the Catholic religion that turns men into pedophiles?

In reply to stroppygob:


No, but it is abuse of power channelled through faith schools.


it is abuse of power. Of course there was also the beatings, the Magdeline Laundries and many other examples sanctions against pupils on 'moral' grounds. I personally know to girls who were expelled from a Catholic school for going to a nightclub, it wasn't a boarding school and they were both 18. I'm shocked if you are not aware of these sorts of things.

In reply to winhill:


I don't think you mean "immigration policy" - that's about who gets a visa to come to the UK (or is allowed to stay in the UK). The people we're talking about have kids here, they're not going anywhere.

As has been said a long way upthread, the first thing you do to address cultural division along these lines is provide high quality secular education to all.


Yes, a bloody awful mess. None of which would have developed if we'd agreed long ago that religion was a private matter and public services do not make way for it.

In reply to The New NickB:


It is abuse of trust in the case of catholic schools, in the case of Islamic schools it is an imposition of a moral code. In the case of the Catholic schools it is pedophiles using the gullibility of the faithful to get their sexual needs met via children. In the case of Islamic schools it is the blanket imposition of a religious faith, which goes against the requirement of mainstream education, and of UK social norms.



Well you hadn't introduced those things, so how could I know you were referencing them? Do you have any other events up your sleeve you'd like to introduce to the debate, so we can see what hand you are playing?

In reply to stroppygob:


I'm trying to get the bottom of this:


So instead you're saying we should focus on the fact that it's Islamic, rather than Jewish or Catholic. You're then implying that the motivation for broadening the discussion to religious schools is some kind of "PC" thing you always go on about.

It isn't, the reason that people are talking about all religions is because that's the sensible policy response to the problem - ban all faith schools (or at least don't fund them). The Islamic ones may well be the most crazy ones with the worst ideas about how to treat kids, but they're all teaching children crazy nonsense and it's not possible to single out Islamic schools while saying the others can carry on with their bullshit. Getting rid of the lot is a sensible response to the story - it has nothing to go with not daring to criticise Islam as you imply.

In reply to stroppygob:


Well, I hadn't introduced the examples of people I know, but the actions of Christian Brothers for example, are no secret and I have referenced them before.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




I've not mentioned "PC" have I?

I'm saying I started a discussion on events at a single school. Some here, no names no pack drill, seem to be unable to say anything negative about these events, focusing instead on other, unrelated, events in other schools.

You can think for yourself why that may be.




Something I would heartily agree on.


It is though. If Catholic schools start segregating girls, and putting them at the back of class, or start separate sports days for boys and girls, or start stealing and breaking into girls phones to punish them for "dating", then we can have a debate on what should be done about them. But while Catholic schools, at worse, pay lip service to UK mores, then we do not have a case.


I agree that getting rid of all faith schools is a good idea, a very good idea. But I think some here would blanch at the idea of telling Islamic believes rs they cannot have a faith school.

In reply to The New NickB:

When did this "Catholic brothers" abuse take place?

In reply to stroppygob:

In the cases of the Catholic Priests / Brothers abusing children, the victims were often persecuted for moral crimes by the church for speaking out, they were no doubt "full of the devil".

In reply to stroppygob:


But there isn't an option of "no Islamic schools, but other religions are OK" - that would be appalling (and illegal) discrimination. It's either deal with bad schools one by one on the basis that they're bad, or wipe out the problem of religious practice creating bad schools with a single blow ending the existence of all faith schools.


I don't see any evidence for this special treatment of Islam at all.

In reply to stroppygob:


Why, because some of use try to be equally dismissive of religion and critical of the damage it causes, regardless of the ethnicity of its adherents.

In reply to The New NickB:

Still fail to see the relevance, or the equivalence to, an Islamic school advocating gender discrimination, but have at it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Who said there should be? Surely, as is happening at present, the school should be investigated for breaches of good educational practice, and be taken back into public supervision if found to be breaching them.




I'm good with either of those.

In reply to seankenny:



No Alesha Dixon, you promise?

In reply to IainRUK:


The discussion here is about people in charge of schools. Such people tend to be in their 40s at least (it can be earlier but is rare). Let's say their parents had them aged 25-ish. That would go back 70-ish years for their parents to be born here, which is mid-40s, so before mass immigration.

So, yes, I would have thought that a substantial fraction of the relevant people are second-generation immigrants. I'm also rather amazed at lengths and pedantry people will go to to avoid the blatantly obvious fact that the post-war rise in Islam in this country is a result of immigration.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



So, British people whose parents came from abroad.


I hate to quote myself, but I did write above: "Well yes, of course immigration over the last 50 years is directly responsible for the rise in the number of Muslims living in the UK."

Others have clearly made the same point but questioned its relevance.

In reply to seankenny:



Except you aren't. You're completely ignoring the point(s) being made and repeatedly making sweeping assumptions about people's thoughts on immigration with strong hints that you regard anyone who even notices the effects of immigration as racist.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well at least in some schools there is propriety;

In reply to MG:


The way people read the same thread totally differently is fascinating. I'm not sure I'm ignoring the points being made, for example I deal directly with Coel's point above, I'm always careful to quote the relevant parts of people's posts that I disagree with, and explain why. If you'd like to quote to me the "sweeping assumptions" which I've posted then I'd be happy to answer for what I've written. That's fair, no?

As for your other point, no, I think it's fine to talk about the effects of immigration. After all, that's what we are all doing here, right? Again, sorry to quote myself, but how about: "I am fine with people voicing their concerns (ain't that big of me?), but I'm also aware of the evils of letting bigotry run riot (and for sure, all that "Muslims go home and I wouldn't live next door to a Romanian" stuff is bigotry pure and simple). I don't have any easy answers for this. "

I even throw in a "oooh bit tricky this" caveat at the end, just to help you delicate souls who think I'm crushing your opinions underfoot with my jackbooted keyboard.

In reply to seankenny:
If you'd like to quote to me the "sweeping assumptions" which I've posted then I'd be happy to answer for what I've written. That's fair, no?

Well we could start with "Unless of course you see it as primarily a story about weird foreign brown people, and that's what you really want to talk about...", phrased so that it implied this is what I thought. Then in this post we have "I'm also aware of the evils of letting bigotry run riot (and for sure, all that "Muslims go home and I wouldn't live next door to a Romanian", implying I or others on this thread are bigots. We also have your question about "blaming" your Irish parents, as if I was interested in apportioning blame to individuals. It's pretty clear to me you hear anyone mention immigration and you instantly stop listening to word they say and assume "rascist, bigot, prejudice". If you actually read what was written, you might note it is possible to raise concerns about immigration and note its sometimes detrimental effects while still recognising its many benefits.

In reply to MG:


Well, there have been two different ways of framing this argument on this thread. One is that it's a failure of educational policy by the govt, and the other that it's a problem of immigration. Perhaps I was being a bit flippant for your tastes, but that's what I was alluding to with this comment - pointing out that you thought it was an immigration problem, from letting too many of those funny foreigners in. In fact, you said so yourself:

"The point is we can't pretend the sort of situation in the OP is nothing to do with recent immigration. It clearly is."

My apologies if the way I said it made you feel a little bit uncomfy.



I'm not implying you personally are a bigot at all. But you must admit sweeping generalisations about Muslims or Romanians or asylum seekers or Jews or gays or the French or whoever the hell we've all been whipped up to hate this week are bordering on bigotry?


As I said above, and hopefully made clear here, I've been very careful to listen to exactly what other people say.


Of course, it's a complicated business with a mix of advantages and disadvantages. It's just that the OP is a story about British people, who were born here, as argued many times above in this thread.

In reply to seankenny:
from letting too many of those funny foreigners in. In fact, you said so yourself:




You just can't help yourself can you!? How do get from what I wrote to me thinking there are too many immigrants or that they are "funny". You just saw the word "immigration" in the sentence I wrote and immediately jumped to all sort of conclusions about my views.

In reply to MG:


I don't know about you, but I find foreigners can be funny. Manuel in Fawlty Towers is funny, no?

In reply to stroppygob:

Since you posted a copy paste of an article with no other comment, I assume nobody else can possible know what is your point, not very complicated really.

In reply to RomTheBear:
That doesn't really answer the question ROM, at all, in any way.

Who is this "we" whom you speak of? Who do you claim to speak for?


Seeing as the topic has had nearly 200 replies, I think most here, your good self excepted, got the drift.

In reply to stroppygob:


It kind of does mate.


Well unless some here have telepathic abilities and can read your mind, everybody.

In reply to seankenny:


Or a mixture of both: failure of government education policy mixed with changes resulting from post-war immigration. You seem to be keen to point to the former of those and dismiss any suggestion that the latter is relevant.

In reply to stroppygob:

Ho so now you are the one speaking for everybody else !
So what's your drift ? Give us some argument/opinions.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So despite the topic having some great debate, and nearly 200 replies, no one here got the drift of the topic.

Have it your own way.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Erm, as I said, more broadly its one of the (unforseen) consequences of immigration, but from 40 or 50 years ago rather than today. However, in formulating a policy response, that's of very little relevance. If you believe it is of relevance, please explain it to me...

In reply to RomTheBear:

I have given my opinions, want me to quote them?

In reply to stroppygob:


Sure go ahead

In reply to RomTheBear:

God, ok, but this is the last time I spoon feed you; (taken from various posts in this thread)

I find religious influence in schools abhorrent, and the medieval backwardness of Islam perniciously so. That we tolerate these sort of things going on in UK schools is an anathema to me.


Except in the past we've not had to confront the effects of the medieval backwardness of the followers of Islam doing the sort of stunts in the OP, have we?


Interesting isn't it? Should a British person says something "sexist", witness the castigation of some UKIP idiots here, they would be sh@t on from a great height.

However as this is an Islamic school, ALL religions must be castigated. Some here have visibly shied away from saying anything negative about the actual examples given.


Isn't it more a case of A faith school overstepping some hard fought for rights, and the norms of UK society?



Islamic schools like the "free" bit, but aren't keen on the "liberal" part.


Well now Sean, I started a thread on events at a single school. Have a look who broadened it to all faith schools, (hint, it wasn't me.)



Sexual abuse in Catholic schools is in no way related to the imposition of Islamic religious mores in other schools.

Sexual abuse is very different, I'm shocked you do not understand that. Do you think it is the Catholic religion that turns men into pedophiles?

It is abuse of trust in the case of catholic schools, in the case of Islamic schools it is an imposition of a moral code. In the case of the Catholic schools it is pedophiles using the gullibility of the faithful to get their sexual needs met via children. In the case of Islamic schools it is the blanket imposition of a religious faith, which goes against the requirement of mainstream education, and of UK social norms.


It is though. If Catholic schools start segregating girls, and putting them at the back of class, or start separate sports days for boys and girls, or start stealing and breaking into girls phones to punish them for "dating", then we can have a debate on what should be done about them. But while Catholic schools, at worse, pay lip service to UK mores, then we do not have a case.

I agree that getting rid of all faith schools is a good idea, a very good idea. But I think some here would blanch at the idea of telling Islamic believers they cannot have a faith school.




Who said there should be? Surely, as is happening at present, the school should be investigated for breaches of good educational practice, and be taken back into public supervision if found to be breaching them.


Well at least in some schools there is propriety;

In reply to seankenny:


I don't think anyone has suggested that immigration policy would be a part "policy response" over this. that's a whole 'nother issue.

However, people were commenting on the *past* events that have resulted in such issues, to be met with deliberate obtuseness along the lines of:

"What makes you think this has anything to do with immigration?"

That was in response to a comment about immigration in the past tense. Others then pointed out how bizarre it was to play dumb about the link with post-war immigration and to pretend that the Islamic communities were already established long before Alfred the Great.

In reply to stroppygob:

Sometimes I think just getting a "I hate Muslims" tattoo would be a better outlet for your angst. It might even be a bit cathartic, and then you could talk about the correct grade for Three Pebble Slab.

In reply to stroppygob:



Can I ask where you got this quote from? Wherever it is, I think you've been had!
A literal translation of "Anws Blewog free school" is Hairy Arse free school.......

In reply to seankenny:

You're at it again!! Try reading things, maybe twice, and then seeing if what is written corresponds to what you are thinking. (Maybe Stroppy does hate Muslim, but I've no idea and nor can you have from what he has written).

In reply to seankenny:

Oh grow up will you? I have expressed no hate to Muslims or anyone. How old are you, 12?

I dislike the influence of religion, especially the imposition of Islamic backwardness into our schools.

Seriously, go away and let the adults talk here.

In reply to wynaptomos:




You gave it away, damn. I know what it means, I am Welsh!

(It was a reversal of what has happened in a Islamic free school, Hajibs are mandatory for all female staff, and non-halal food is banned. I was hoping someone would bite!)

In reply to Coel Hellier:





Not quite. My position, stated many times above, is that clearly Muslims live in the UK as a result of immigration from South Asia and East Africa over the past half century. But the people pushing for this have, almost certainly, been born in Britain. This is primarily about a failure in our education system.

PS. Coel, love seeing you get your knickers in a twist about this issue. You should try being left-wing for a day or two - when Labour were in power we took every chance to criticise them.

In reply to stroppygob:


Well, you are busy expressing something. I'm not entirely sure what it is mind.


Okay, how about "I hate Muslims" on the left arm, "I hate Christianity" on the right, and a nice big generally anti-religious iconoclastic backpiece.

You'd feel better.


Satire is a big English tradition.

In reply to seankenny:



Well why not get someone over 16 to explain the long words to you?


As I say, why not go away and talk about “Angry birds” or something with your mates, this adult stuff is too confusing for you.


It is, it’s just a shame you don't understand what it means

noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.


There is nothing satirical about making unsubstantiated claims about what others believe. I can explain "irony" to you too if you like.

Now shoo little boy, go outside and play while it's still sunny.

Oh, by the way, another claim that I am racist or hate Muslims or should get a hate tattoo, from you, and I'm calling the mods in to give their opinion, ok?

In reply to stroppygob:

Thank the Lord someone introduced a little humor !

All organized religion is evil, some are just more evil than others !

( without mentioning any names ).

In reply to seankenny:


Except you are not being satirical you are throwing around accusations of racism and bigotry at people who have shown no such traits

In reply to stroppygob:

Totally off subject, but has this been discussed on here :-

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/sudan-execution-apostasy-pregnant-woman-... ?


I can't find anything and as I'm not a daily visitor to these forums I might have missed it.

In reply to stroppygob:


Oh just man up and call them in now. Or should I do it myself?

In reply to seankenny:
Please do!!


PS. IT's not just me who has noted your insult throwing, and lack of ability to debate.

In reply to seankenny:
And if you are going to do it, please be prepared to show where I have posted anything which gives you grounds for your insults. You will do that, won't you?

In reply to stroppygob:


So let's get this correct, you don't hate Muslims?

In reply to seankenny:

I do not hate Muslims. (As I have said here once already.)


Stop making up stuff about me, it's very childish.

In reply to stroppygob:


Just checking. Clarity is a sweet, sweet thing.



I've noticed this before. You put yourself out there and are surprised when people draw conclusions from that. More than surprised, actually a bit distraught. We all draw conclusions about people from what they say and write, you have drawn the conclusion that I'm childish (yup, can be, sometimes) and can't debate (well, maybe, maybe not), and you know what. That's fine. It happens.

Upthread Jon made a similar point, but more diplomatically, and you got angsty with him too. Perhaps you are unaware of how you come across? (Before you try lobbing that one back at me, I know a lot of people think I'm a wanker.)

In reply to seankenny:


That's not balanced. The one on the right is about hating an ideology, the one of the left is about hating people. We really need to keep this distinction clear: being opposed to Islamic ideology is not the same thing as a hatred of people.

In reply to seankenny:


Draw conclusions all you like, but unless you can offer proof then all your doing is imagining things. I imagine your small penis is why you act so childishly when bested in debate, insecurity in your manhood and all that.



Not at all distraught, watching you debase what little intellect you have is highly amusing.


But see I can provide proof you are childish and cannot debate, using verifiable evidence from you posts. You cannot do the same though about what you claim about me, can you? There is no hate in my posts for Muslims or anyone, so you are just making up imaginary stuff.


I didn't get 'angsty" I answered his point with fact and proof. You should try it.

And yes, I do think you're a wanker. But there again, who amongst us can honestly claim we are not. (Making love to someone you really love is sweet.)

Look, I won’t call you childish, if you do not make stuff up about what I think, that’s a fair offer, isn’t it? Shake and get back to debate? (I have to go to bed soon in any case.)

In reply to stroppygob:

Using a lot of sexual imagery in this post, strops.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I noticed that confusion. I suspect it may well be at the root of Sean's confusion over a lot of the points being made here. Objecting to and criticising the ideas people hold is not the same as objecting to, let alone hating, the people themselves.

In reply to MG:


Whilst on my morning run (well, jog actually) the truth dawned. Sean is not real but is actually a "Guardianista" avatar created by simon4 to give him something to get really worked up about

In reply to Postmanpat:

Rumbled.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


True, true - my bad. Are you suggesting that Stroppy should get an "I hate Islam tattoo?" instead? I am not suggesting it at all. Obviously. Because if I offend Stroppy in this way he'll try to get me banned for offensive speech...

In reply to seankenny:


How about one of these:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/discoweasel/7259039576/

(There's a point to be made here about the differences between a literal interpretation of the religion, the range of cultural attitudes associated with the religion, and to what extent people act like arseholes because they're religious and to what extent they use religion to justify their being arseholes. But that'd take a while...)

In reply to Coel Hellier:
No, its also demographics.. birth rates.. then social factors.. I never said immigration wasn't a factor, just not the sole factor. But birth rates are higher so each generation there are more muslims from those original immigrants. They are Brits, especially those born to second generation immigrants.

In reply to MG:


Amen brother. You put that more succinctly, (and politely,) than I would have.

In reply to seankenny:

Oh I don't want you barred Sean, not at all. Just stop making offensive and unsupportable statements, and we'll be sound.

If you could back up your accusations against me with quotes or facts, or any evidence whatsoever, that would be a (rare) bonus.

As many have pointed out to you, you don't seem capable of debating in any sort of rational, decent or coherent manner, so I won't hold my breath on you changing.

And besides, why would I want you banned when you're making me look so good?

In reply to stroppygob:

But don't we have the right to be offensive?

In reply to seankenny:


The irony is delightful isn't it

In reply to The New NickB:

You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment.

In reply to The New NickB:

Just to be clear - that's because I'm irrational, indecent and incoherent.

In reply to seankenny:


The only way to be.

In reply to The New NickB:

I wish old strops had tried to get me banned. I was well up for being a free speech martyr. He seems to have returned to a state of brittle calm now, it'll take ages to wind him up again.

In reply to seankenny:

Of course you do. You also have the right to point out where people make baseless childish accusations which they are unable to back up.

Why do you find it so hard to debate honestly Sean?


It's rather obvious you have nothing to offer in this debate apart from petty unsubstantiated slurs, are you proud of that?

You carry on mate, and I'll carry on exposing you for the sort of person you are.

In reply to seankenny:

"Free speech martyr"?

Oh my aching side!!!

Lair, cheat and child you may be Sean, but "free speech martyr"?

Thanks, that's the best present you could have given me.

In reply to seankenny:

Here's another lovely piece of Sean stupidity for us, according to Sean someone not responding within 25 minutes of him posting, equals a "brittle silence".

You don't have to laugh at him, poor soul.

In reply to seankenny:


No one seems to be denying them citizenship, and the reason almost every organisation that has a duty under the Equality Act asks questions about origin or heritage or race is because they're interested in extended communities not just how long people have been in the UK. Whether these are newly immigrant or the families of immigrants isn't the issue.

When you say that this is a failure in the education system it's difficult to see what you can possibly mean, especially after I had to correct you once on this already, it doesn't seem that you have an informed position on 'our education system'.

Although the school in the OP is an Academy, half the schools of the 6 causing real concern in Birmingham were not (similarly other schools around the country). So if it's not the Academy or Free School system you're talking about then all that is left is the Governor system. Although governors appoint headteachers they can't dismiss them (just suspend them). Dismissal is the job of the Director of Child Services for the LA. (The reason Rogers got the Chief Exec job at Birmingham was that he was DCS in Solihull and Birmingham's Child Services record has been bad for years).

The process is quite complicated and involves (or should involve) the DCS well before suspension, bear in mind the LA has a governor at the school already.

This works reasonably well in 99% of cases, hardly a huge problem with the education system. Of course mistakes do get made, google the head sacked over cake, £300K compo paid out.

These cases, the OP , the dozens of others, are mostly very different, Heads are not being displaced as a result of disciplinary proceedings (including results), they're being driven out by an uncooperative and antagonistic governing body.

Once activists in a governing body have decided to use the breakdown of the relationship as an excuse to achieve something that cannot be achieved via the rule book, the LEA is faced with backing one or the other, or declaring a draw and encouraging the parties to go their separate ways. It's head you lose, tails they win for headteachers.

This might well come down to the ability of those activists to manipulate the LA.

In Birmingham's case it seems that Bore has been well manipulated (his mafiosi style appeal to the 'whistleblower', his dismissal of the concerns of headteachers) and heads won't take much comfort from Rogers dismissing it as a case of new communities attempting to achieve the type of school that they have experienced in their countries of origin. In fact it isn't even possible to understand his remarks unless you know which country people have emigrated from and what type of schools they have there.

In reply to seankenny:

Just in case you were wondering Sean, that last bit of "brittle silence"[sic] was me watching the penultimate episode of "A Perfect Spy", the BBC adaptation of John Le Carre's book. It's very good.

In reply to winhill:

Thanks for the explanation of the problem (not being sarcastic btw).

Quick question: what changes would you make to the immigration system, now, that would prevent or affect these problems?





Pakistan, India, etc have a huge variety of schools, from British-style boarding schools to madrassahs in mud huts. Given that range of options, that comment you quote is practically meaningless (imho).