UKC

A review commissioned by Cameron as part of the strategy for tackling extremism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38200989

This should get the SJW brigade and the extremist of all sides going at it.

I am not sure if it's gonna deliver what the government hoped for, but Casey seems to have delivered a considered opinion, which is well researched. Basically, it down to us all to heal divisions. Something I am in full agreement with.

These are admittedly idealistic lyrics from a Rush song, but if only it could be true. (I guess that's why it's called "Sphere: A kind of dream").

We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim
Let the truth of love be lighted
Let the love of truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the heart and mind united in a single
Perfect
Sphere

The problem is that most only accept their truth and their love as being valid.

In reply to Hugh J:

Peart's lyrics were a surprising change of pace, and unique in the annals of rock. At the time most rock lyrics fit into one of three categories: collectivist, left-wing political songs, maudlin singer-songwriter fare, or macabre heavymetal posing. While some of Peart's musings resembled the science fiction-fueled sagas popularized by Yes, Genesis, and other progressive rock groups, Peart's main inspiration was novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. Indeed, Rush's epic 1976 album, 2112, was inspired by Rand's novel Anthem, a dystopian tale of one man's struggle to revive individualism in a world so collectivist that even the word "I" is prohibited. In the liner notes to the album, Peart sets forth his appreciation for "the genius of Ayn Rand." Peart actually signalled his interest in Rand in 1975's Fly by Night.

In reply to Big Ger:

Just had to look Ayn Rand up. Fascinating. Hope the op reads I up

In reply to Big Ger:
Firstly, Peart no longer follows this kind of philosophy and hasn't done since the early 80's, a young man has a right to change his views, (indeed Ger, so does an old man).

Secondly, if you're gonna quote an extract, it would be polite to both reader and writer if you also quoted the source.

Thirdly, do you not agree with the sentiment of those lyrics?

Finally (and this applies to many others too), do you actually have anything to say on the actual subject of the thread? It's something which may be of more inportance than any other issue in our society, including Brexit. Plenty of people seem more than keen to share their views on the obviously more pressing issues of motorways, headphones and Sia videos.

In reply to neilh:

Yes, I have read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and books about Objectivism. Rand's philosophy is largely bollocks and largely discredited as such.

In reply to Hugh J:




I find it hard to believe it will have any significant impact unless we ban faith schools or even resort to "bussing" or clamp down hard on illegal cultural practices. None of which will happen.

Modern communications and transport and the critical mass of an immigrant cohort mean that it is perfectly possibly to live physically in one country but culturally, emotionally and in every other way inhabit another country. I don't see how that can be stopped.

In reply to Hugh J:
It's possibly true that people from the same culture congregate in an area for the perceived security that it gives them in a foreign country.
I'm sure this is true all over the world and throughout history.
The UK's problems might lie in the large numbers of immigrants who have entered the country in a short space of time. This may have added to the usual 'ghettoisation' process.
Combined with government's emphasis on multiculturalism and a reluctance to have an honest debate around assimilation of migrants this might be allowing some of the problems to develop .

In reply to Postmanpat:

I couldn't agree more. This is a secular country. We have secular politics, we should have secular education. I also agree with Casey's ideas of British values being taught in all schools. Integration is key to a cultural harmony most of us would like and welcoming other cultures to ours.

Wow PMP, perhaps "we can walk our road together".

You'll be glad to hear that France has a secular education system then?

In reply to baron:

Yes, this was my allusion to the SJWs.

If Brexit and Trumpism achieve anything worthwhile, hopefully it will be kicking these counterproductive loons into the long grass.

In reply to Hugh J:

>
Yup, but my impression is that the immigrant communities are jequally "ghettoised" physically and culturally which suggests that schools alone can't change things.

In reply to Postmanpat: ' which suggests that schools alone can't change things.'

Wow, what a deja vue ... when I went to teacher training college (briefly) in the early 70s we were taught that as teachers we could change the world.

It was, unfortunately, b*llocks.

In reply to Hugh J:

He wrote "Sphere: A kind of dream" in 1978, it was on "Hemispheres.



They're bit "fluffy bunny" for my taste. I prefer this sentiment;

"If you trust in yourself. . .and believe in your dreams. . .and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy."
Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men


You brought up the song as sort sort of example didn't you? Or isn't it part of the subject of the thread?


Really, most people give up on Ayn Rand after reading a few chapters of one book, recognising it for the pseudo-philosophy, fit only for "libertarian" Americans, which it is. You must be a slow learner if you needed to read more than that.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The UK made the huge mistake of not giving a vote to well-integrated, largely secular EU immigrants but giving one to poorly integrated, deeply religious, immigrants from the commonwealth. Brexit and being unable to do anything effective to promote assimilation/integration are the consequences.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You want EU citizens (what the heck is one of those?) to have had a vote in the EU referendum?
Really?

In reply to Big Ger:


Perhaps I wanted to have more of an understanding than you?

In reply to baron:


If EU citizens had a vote - as they do in elections to the Scottish Parliament - there would never have been a referendum because in constituencies with lots of EU immigrants UKIP/hard line anti-EU Tories would not be elected.

Why shouldn't someone from Germany who lives in the UK not get a vote in the EU referendum when someone from Australia or Pakistan living in the UK does, as does someone from the UK living in Australia. Barring EU citizens from voting was a fix that was put in place to placate the right wing of the Tory party.

In reply to Hugh J:


Understanding drivel does not enlighten.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

As much as I think Brexit is a bad idea, I cannot agree with you here. The referendum was open to UK citizens.

The fact that there are UK citizens from other areas of the world that maybe poorly integrated and have differing and deeply held religious views is the issue here. It is that which is causing the schism in our society.

In reply to Big Ger:

So says the great genius of UKC

How many books have you written?

In reply to Hugh J:

Just the two.

I'm hoping to get a third out by the end of next year.

In reply to Big Ger:

Perhaps you'd like me to give you a review?

Hopefully, they'll be better than the drivel you write on here.

In reply to Hugh J:


The referendum was open to British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens living in the UK and British citizens who had lived abroad for less than 15 years.

EU citizens have as much right to vote as Commonwealth citizens and arguably EU citizens who have made their life in the UK and pay tax in the UK have as much right to vote as UK citizens who have made their life abroad.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Including or excluding EU citizens from the referendum would certainly have skewed the vote one way or the other.
Imagine the uproar from leavers if the vote was to remain thanks to EU citizens voting for that outcome!
But this is, of course, not the issue for the Casy report.
That, as you said, is down to migration from outside the EU.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Thanks, I didn't realise that. If that was indeed the case then I agree and withdraw my previous statement.

In reply to Hugh J:


Precisely why I don't promote them on here, (nor my music,) the childish vindictiveness of some is appalling.


See what I mean?

In reply to Big Ger:


Like this:

"You must be a slow learner if you needed to read more than that."

I don't remember insulting you first so that makes this quote from you bollocks:

"As I say, I only insult those who insult me first."

In reply to Hugh J:




Fair comment. I should stand by my principles.

(The "see what I mean" still stands BTW.)

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


The Polish are now the numerically largest group of immigrants to the UK (bigger than India!) and they are very Catholic.

Sikhs and Hindus are deeply religious immigrants from the Commonwealth but are also very Tory, go figure.

The difference between the Commonwealth and the EU is that the UK has a moral duty to help the Commonwealth but only an economic duty to help the EU.

So promoting EU migration and migrants over the CW reduces the issue to economics rather than ethics. That's why we got Brexit.

In reply to winhill:

Good answer.

Can we get back on topic now?

In reply to Hugh J:

SJW?

(lct)

In reply to Timmd:



Social Justice Warrior

In reply to winhill:


The difference between the EU and the Commonwealth is that the EU and Europe are political and geographic realities, the commonwealth is an almost irrelevant vestige of an empire that no longer exists. We have a duty to Europe because we are European.

In reply to Hugh J:
No need for nuances and detailed examination of a complex subject when the 'Patriachy' is to blame.

Too little, too late platitudinous gob shiteing from.the esteemed Dame. All obvious to anyone with a single mark one eyeball. The live game of Pac-Man down at the local supermarket would suggest purdah to be the new normal and the ubiquity of gulf state funded mosques. Resistance is futile.

D

In reply to Hugh J:

I think they found exactly what they went looking for, no surprise there and this report has got nothing to do with extremists, and everything to do with the current game of blame the immigrants while we screw everyone else over.

I'm glad to hear the white women of Surrey are safe and well but i don't suppose she has looked elsewhere.

Banning faith schools would be a good start, I agree. Maybe we should do that in Scotland and N Ireland first?

In reply to marsbar:


I think the white women of Surrey allusion was used to indicate the gulf in equal rights between white women in general and muslim women who are basicallly living uder Sharia law in the UK, rather than claiming all is well with gender equality in general.

As for faith. I find it difficult to understand how it possible in the 21st century for people to follow what are basically the Iron Age philosophies of desert goat hurders, people who knew nothing of earthquakes, storms, disease etc and formed their own erroneous theories about the world.

In reply to Dauphin:

If you truly think "resistence is futile" there is little point in you adding anything to the debate is there?

In reply to Hugh J:

Which debate? The immigration debate the government gingerly decided to pop a little toe into the water of thirty years late? Its beyond debate with the new normal in many northern towns. Its line in the sand time and no doubt offend many unless you want lots more of the same in the decades to come. Feminist Leftists and rape apologist fundamentalist finger pointing village idiots (both equally regressive) what a weird world it's becoming.

D

In reply to Hugh J:



>As for faith. I find it difficult to understand how it possible in the 21st century for people to follow what are basically the Iron Age philosophies of desert goat hurders, people who knew nothing of earthquakes, storms, disease etc and formed their own erroneous theories about the world.

We still have bishops in the House of Lords, the head of state is head of the Anglican Church. QED.

I think the simple answer is it suits some peoples brain wiring to believe in bearded blokes in the clouds, they tend to be authoritarian in outlook and prefer to be led around by men in fancy dress. Collective action held together by a moral outlook probably has an evolutionary advantage over individual efforts.


D

In reply to Dauphin:

Well draw that line in the sand then. And if you make a compelling argument this "village idiot" will stand beside you.

In reply to Dauphin:

With our newly found (in the grand scheme of things) ability to reason and comprehend, it's time to fast forward our moral understanding too - before we properly mess things up.

In reply to marsbar:



The report doesn't say that the "white women of Surrey are safe and well". It says that the laws of the land are applied to them and their partners in a way that they are not applied to some Muslims. Do you think this is either untrue or, or if it is true, is a bad thing?

There is an integration problem in parts of the UK. Blaming the messenger has aggravated the problem and will entrench it.

In reply to Hugh J:

Many would disagree that this is a secular country, including no doubt the Queen, our head of state and head of the state religion. Religion is becoming less and less important in political life, but as much as I wish we were, we are not a secular country. We should have secular education, but that is a battle that will be hard fought, mainly by the thousands of Christian schools, appears to be going in the wrong direction.

In reply to baron:


Imagine the uproar if those most personally and negatively affected by the vote to leave had been disenfranchised.

Imagine that was you losing the say in your family's future. Disenfranchising UK resident EU nationals was a disgrace.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

No it wasn't (a disgrace).
The idea of allowing resident EU nationals a vote was an attempt to ensure a remain vote.
EU citizens can't vote in a general election.
The leavers complain that 'Europe' has too great a say in UK affairs.
How was allowing millions of 'Europeans' to affect a UK referendum going to sit with them?

In reply to baron:
We disagree.

The idea behind allowing UK resident EU nationals a voice was about allowing people, many with deep roots in in the UK, now facing profound uncertainty a say in their future. You had yours. I had mine (despite being an economic immigrant only peripherally affected by the decision either way).

In the case of those resident in the UK at the time of the election (or production of the roll) then I also consider this unjust.

I couldn't care less. It's about giving people subject to the rule of the government in their country of residence a say in who forms that government and what its agenda is. To paraphrase our American cousins 'no taxation without representation'.
jk

In reply to baron:



The idea of banning EU nationals from voting while allowing immigrants from commonwealth countries to vote was a blatant fix to make a leave vote more likely. There was a distinct constituency in the leave camp of immigrants from Africa and Asia who were against free movement within Europe to give more opportunity for immigration from their countries of origin.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Can you point to any understanding within the EU. law or otherwise, that would give UK citizens living in the EU a reciprocal right?

If we joined the EU on the understanding that EU citizens didn't get to vote on national issues, surely that is the way to proceed until the rules are changed?

Changing the rules just to benefit EU not UK citizens is a different matter but I expect deeply unpopular, or it would have been included from the start of the EU (especially given the enshrinement of freedom of movement).

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


How did voting eligibility for the referendum differ from a general election?

In reply to winhill:


Can you explain why immigrants from Pakistan should get a vote and citizens of the EU exercising their freedom of movement rights do not?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Because that's how it works for a general election. You can argue that general election eligibility is also nuts, but it's pretty obvious that the system wasn't created specifically for the referendum. It was simply based on the general election system and would have created an outcry had it been changed specifically for the referendum.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Does said Pakistani immigrant have citizenship of the UK?

I really fancy voting in the next French election as it will affect the UK and Brexit, what are the chances of my being able to do that?

In reply to Big Ger:

He'd get a vote anyway, he'd get a vote if he was just a student here. I don't think he should but he would.

Not that one anachronistic law means we should let anyone who moves here have a vote of course, we could just restrict voting to UK citizens only and be completely fair.

In reply to Big Ger:


No. Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK were allowed to vote, EU citizens resident in the UK were not.

https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/eu-referendum/about

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


There was also a "right to remain" (ironic name,) voting criteria for commonwealth citizens, resident in the UK, was there not?

In reply to thomasadixon:


Which is what the review that Gordon Brown ordered had recommended and would bring us into line with most of our EU partners, like France and Germany, who only allow citizens to vote.

Germany is interesting because they have only recently permitted joint nationality, so Germans living in the UK who could have applied for dual citizenship, and therefore get a vote, were prevented from so doing by the German state, not the British.

In reply to Most:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

£uc& off and start your own thread !!!!!!

In reply to Hugh J:


Hence why we need to stop pushing religion and push logic, human psychology and relationship theory in schools instead.

And stop over 40's from voting, their life experience that they use to make decisions is reliant on too many things in the past which means they don't consider the current position, but include a past that of no longer relevant...

In reply to jonnie3430:
I presume that your second paragraph is a joke?
Oh sorry, I'm over 40 so I'm probably wrong.

In reply to baron:

Not really, I know it would never happen, but it would get the youth interested in how their countries run instead of then being pissed off at most politicians. It would also stop people voting labour, etc. because "my father would roll in his grave of I didn't," which isn't the point.

In reply to jonnie3430:



It's a shame I can't both like and dislike your post, I hope it's obviously which half I think is correct (and I guess the other part is somewhat tongue in cheek anyway).

However, I don't believe the problem behind the line you quoted is confined to religion, though I agree it plays a huge part. I also agree that religion has no place in education, apart from instruction of its impact on a cultural and philosophical level (as pure as it could be anyway).

I am not so blind to realise this could lead to other problems, though these already exist anyway, but I believe could possibly get worse. By leaving religious education to done at home and in religious institutions we could increase the risk of radicalisation (whichever religious philosophy). This is because religious family memebers and religious leaders could possibly feel a greater onus to push their beliefs at more hardline levels.

Personally, my hope would be for religion to slowly die a death through the realisation of its absurdity. For this to happen we need a fully integrated society and I believe one of the best ways forward to this would be the abolition of faith schools. It is children who make the future, I believe it is immoral to segregate them and tell them they are diffierent to one another because they have a different creed (and basically, a different colour of skin).

Another way is for secularists to start espousing the educational principles you have outlined in your post. Some of you will say you've got no chance, that these things are too entrenched, but I believe it is the duty for all secularists to take up these challenges, as someone once said; "not because they are easy, but because they are hard . . . . . because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."

In reply to Hugh J:

Back to the topic, what do you think of this article https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/opinion/2016/49/samira-shackle-on-casey...

In reply to Hugh J:



Amen to that brother Hugh.

Though I'd prefer quickly to slowly.

In reply to marsbar:
Thanks marsbar. What do I think? The truth?

I think although there maybe a few good point raised about the fact that integration is more than an Muslim issue, I'm afraid to say, it is not much more than a bit of a SJW rant. The main thrust of the article is to do nothing but criticise someone who has highlighted some important issues that need addressing. The other criticism I have is that although the author has raised that some of these issues are also prevalent within other communities, she suggest nothing as a possible solution and just spends her energy rubbishing Casey's suggestions.

It is a bit of misguided criticism to suggests Casey is wrong to suggest there is a problem with the pace of immigration being too high in certain areas when the quickest (and largest) group is Eastern Europeans. There is a chart on the link that I included in the OP that shows the levels of women with poor English within different communities. That indicates that around 40% of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women (who have been in the country for more than 30 years according to the author) cannot speak English to an appropriate level. Whereas with Eastern European women (who have generally been here for less time) the figure is around half of that.

So I would suggest considering that Casey's brief was to investigate this issue in relation to extremism, it is little wonder that she has concentrated on the Muslim sections of society. After I don't recall hearing anything on the news about Polish extremism.

Added to this I also have some anecdotal evidence. My wife has spent some time teaching people to speak English. The "students" were sent by the job centre, most were Eastern European, some were of Muslim origin, a few were Chinese and a couple of Africans. According to my wife, the Chinese and the Africans were a dream to teach, the Eastern Europeans a bit chavvy, but those of Muslim origin were generally totally disinterested. That group also included some Kuwaiti men who were just plain rude to her.

I have absolutely no interest to live in a Muslim country. But if I did, I would do my best to integrate within their society, not that I'm sure many would accept me, even if I was to convert to Islam. I know it is a significantly smaller step, but I own a property in France and I considered it my duty to learn to speak French and integrate into their society. Indeed we chose to live in a place where there was little English influence. I therefore think it reasonable that if people want to gain the benefits of living in the UK it is their duty to integrate into the society and contribute to keeping Britain the fine country that attracted them in the first place.

In reply to Hugh J:

When I heard about the report on the news, I think I switched off after I heard the word "oath" mentioned in one of the recommendations and wrote it off as load of well-intentioned guff. After your prompt on the other thread I had a look at the BBC link and I generally agree with what she's saying - I guess the first thing to say is that I do agree there's a problem. I'm an optometrist, and I'm frequently forced to appear cheerful when I'm faced with testing an Asian woman who can't speak a word of English and whose daughter, a child, has to translate for her. Thankfully I've never had the scenario of someone coming in with the full trick-or-treat get-up, and having to ask them to remove it so we can begin a conversation, but no doubt it'll happen. I guess people in most walks of life now come up against those parts of the Muslim community who are deeply segregated from mainstream Britain, and I doubt many think it's a great thing. (It's worth noting of course that half the time the optom's also a Muslim, but generally if they've got a career in healthcare they're pretty well integrated!)

However, I don't think Casey is anywhere near radical enough to have any effect at the national level. I would hope though that some of the sensible initiatives (which sound rather difficult to deliver with any real punch in the current fiscal climate) such as IT and sports stuff for kids which are engineered to get them to mix can do some good for individuals, if they happen.

As others have said, faith schools must go. Obviously, they are a ludicrous idea and totally subvert the very meaning of the word "education". But faith schools are an extreme example of segregation, and if we (as a democracy) were really serious about integration, we'd have to make some big compromises, i.e. actually mix our kids up so that they grew up in a diverse social environment. It's easy for me to say as someone with absolutely no interest in personally reproducing: put me in charge and you'd have everyone in state schools that were, frankly, socially engineered. There wouldn't be any choice (unless a really good case could be made by the parent). Of course that's how I would like things to be set up, but I don't see it as politically possible, so I'm just going off on one here to be honest...

I'm not convinced there's much hope for changing the adults who make up the current segregated communities with a few policy initiatives. Immigration has been fundamental to our economy and we wouldn't be a successful country had we not had a history of bringing foreigners in to work in our industries. You can't do that, reap the economic rewards and not as a consequence have "chain migration" (i.e. people bringing the rest of their families with them, plus a few more through sham marriages, fake companies, dodgy colleges, etc). Perhaps governments could have looked ahead to dream up policies to prevent ghettoisation, but I think that's asking too much - and would those policies have been popular, i.e. possible?

I don't buy the idea that the vague notion of "multiculturalism" is to blame for the segregation we see today. I think it's pretty much inevitable given how we've made our money as a country. What should we do about it? I believe in creating a wholly secular society in which religion is confined to the private sphere; but France has given that a good go, and look where it's got them. The stuff that comes out of the liberal intellentsia including Sam Harris (and a lot of people on here) that focuses on how bad the religion of Islam is may be true in many senses, but is incredibly unhelpful in the way it alienates people who are otherwise "on our side", i.e. all the well-integrated, professional Muslims, who are just going to think you're a dick if you come out with stuff that is deeply offensive from their religious perspective. Frankly, my only suggestion is social engineering through schools (impossible to the degree I think would be effective, unfortunately) to hope that the next generation can make a better go of living in the same country as people who are a bit different to them.

TL;DR: Problem inevitable; solution non-existent

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I feel your pain. I've had to conduct a psychiatric assessment on someone with florid psychosis, potentially a risk to themselves and others, who is accompanied by a highly distressed couple of parents, none of whom have a command of English, via an interpreter.

Doesn't make for a comfortable decision to admit or allow to return home.

In reply to Big Ger:

Oh god. That sounds even harder than asking them which is better, 1 or 2?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The reality of course would be that the more dogmatic and comprehensive your socially engineered education system was the more people would revolt against it. It would become the problem...

In reply to Siward:


Probably. But it at least be better than faith schools, free schools, grammar schools and private schools.

In reply to Jon Stewart and Hugh J

I agree people should learn English (or French etc)

My personal experience (parents evenings) is that Eastern European parents are just as likely to have no clue about what I'm saying as any other. However that's not in anyway statistically robust. It is also recent immigrants rather than those who have been here longer. Parents evening can be quite comical when the child you are talking about is the translator.

As for Polish extremists, we had a bit of an issue here with some rather nasty far right Polish Nazis. Obviously that's not the norm, they are a minority.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Revival_of_Poland

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/features/nop/

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Do you know about the Busing Riots in Boston amongst other US cities? http://www.wbur.org/news/2014/09/05/boston-busing-anniversary

This is also well worth a listen if you have the time/inclination and are interested in schools being used to reshape society and the pushback that comes with it. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-...

In reply to marsbar:


At least they have turned up. I wish plenty of white British parents came to see me about their child on parents evening. Invariably its the kids who are having no problems whose parents come in.

But then in the past I've also been that parent who doesn't really speak the local language relying on the ability of the teacher to talk to me in my language, so I think karma suggests I should do anything I can to accommodate the needs of parents now I'm the teacher!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Oh god, this will sound racist, but here we go;

Try asking the interpreter; "Can you ask him if he's been getting ideas from the TV, that people on TV are saying things which have a special meaning just for him"
Interpretor; "Two minutes of hyper-fast Burmese."
Patient; " Two minutes of Burmese"
Parent; "Five minutes of hyper-fast Burmese"
Patient; " Five minutes of Burmese"
Parent; "Five minutes of hyper-fast Burmese" (arguing)
Continues for some time, ends
Interpreter; "Can you explain the question again?

Continues for another three hours.....

In reply to TobyA:

I hear so much grumbling about immigrants and yet they turn up for their daughters parents evenings and are interested, and want them to do well.

In reply to Big Ger:

Short of having simultaneous translation I think that's the universal experience of using translators. It's made even worse if you know a weeny bit of the language being used because you can be pretty certain that a lot more was said than the translator finally says back to you.

In reply to Big Ger:

Ha. I'm always amazed by the intricacy of debate around the question "do you use those glasses to watch TV?" so I can barely imagine...

In reply to TobyA:

I'm not sure it's wise to take lessons about the UK today from the US in the early 70s... I'll hopefully find time to listen to the podcast, but in principle I believe that the only way to get people to live properly with one another is to have them grow up together.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The issues in Boston went on well into the 80s, but I take your point. The TAL episode covers a contemporary case though.

I teach sociology of education currently, and its still the case now as it was when I did my A level and undergrad 25 years ago(!) that socio economic class is the strongest indicator for educational success/failure. So yes, maybe we could mix up religions or ethnic backgrounds etc. but in the UK actually the biggest "not living together" problems stem from poorer people and middle class people not living together, rather than race or religion. House prices make a pretty efficient segregation tool!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yep, not helped of course by the fact that the person holding all the relevant important information may be orbiting a different planet at the time.

In reply to TobyA:

I haven't got figures, but I was under the impression that some ethnic/immigrant groups bucked the trend when it comes to socioeconomic class as a prediction. Possibly due to placing a higher value on education. I feel like the main poverty with our WENG children is poverty of aspiration.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thanks Jon, great reply and food for thought, as are the subsequent posts. Thanks folks.

I've got something to muse on during the wee hours - I works night shifts and I've got to work now (until it's all done), but will return with some considerations.

In reply to marsbar:


Yes, that has changed since I was at school - I think even black boys are now at about national average for GCSEs, with White British now very slightly under national average. But class still has a big impact on immigrant/BME groups as well.


Ah... the old cultural or material deprivation debate, that hasn't changed much since I learnt it at A level, and it seems no one has come up with an answer either! So basically, it's both.

In reply to TobyA:


No doubt. I feel very lucky to have gone to a really diverse school where there were plenty of middle-class kids getting good grades and going off to top universities, loads of white working class kids, loads of 2nd gen immigrants from lots of communities, and a few Somali refugees who had no idea what the hell was going on thrown into the mix. As a cohort we made pretty good evidence that the education system does not take in a homogeneous input and churn out results according to the efficacy of the processing in the sausage machine (the theory on which pretty much all education policy is based). What goes in comes out, but grown up and influenced (a bit). Bit of a derail that, sorry...

In reply to marsbar:


Brilliant!

"Your child is a disgrace! He's burnt down the science block, terrorises the other children and sells porn and drugs in the playground!"

"She says I'm doing really well Dad!"

In reply to Ridge:

I'm pretty sure I could indicate fluently with just facial expressions and hand gestures what I think of some of the kids!

In reply to marsbar:


I see a few Eastern European folk who don't speak a word, but I assume they're pretty new here (I could be wrong). I see a lot of Pakistani women who've been here for decades, which is where the grumbling comes from. And it's not towards them personally, it's towards the culture that leads to that outcome. And to be clear, I'm talking about a very specific subset of (Pakistani) Muslims in Sheffield, I do not put it down to the religion of Islam - as I said, often the optom is also Muslim.


At least the parents will go away feeling proud of how brilliant their little brat is!

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Sorry for the tardy reply, but on the upside is I've had a bit to think and take in yours and others post.

It is a bit coincidental to find out you're an optometrist, my last experience with a muslim was having an eye test. I'm a country bumpkin, so it's very much a European demographic around here, but the optician I went to see in the local town was a muslim woman. One thing that struck me was that we were in a room alone together, which I thought was a bit of a no no in Islam - but probably shows my ignorance more than anything. I don't think that I am prejudice in anyway, though I did notice she was a muslim, the hijab was a bit of a giveaway, but is that racist? I suppose technically you could say it is a mild form, but it's still a bit of a stretch in my opinion, it would be nearly comparable to being sexist by thinking she was a woman.

Thanks for reminding me about the historic origins of immigration. Sometimes it easy to just say they are in our country they should speak English. This is to forget the fact that a lot of people were asked to come here, firstly to do the jobs required to help rebuild the nation after WWII and latterly to do the job that the Britsh don't want to do. I agree with you that the problems we are seeing with integration are inevitable.

I couldn't agree with you more on your views about education, but appreciate the problems of anti-segregation / busing policies would be, as hightlight by the links Toby A posted. I obviously agree with your secular eduction view also. The one thing that raises some concern is that it could all turn a bit 1984 / Brave New World. Social and educational leaders would have to ensure that in the absence of religion, issues such as compassion are not forgotten. I fear a Capitalist version of Communism will be about as benefical (and abused) as the Marxist version was (with the possible exceptions of Cuba and Venezuela - which is socialist).

Now, to the sticky wicket that is Islam. I have no problem at all with moderate Muslims or moderate Christians, Jews, Sihks and Hindi for that matter. It is their choice to believe in whatever brings them comfort (from the fear of death?). I don't know too much about radial Sihkism or Hinduism, but apart from on a philosophical level, I have don't have much of a problem with radical Christianity or Judaism. This is because they have largely been beaten into submission by over 300 years of scientific revelations, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and the scientific philosophers Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Russell. I know there are all sorts of issues with any radical religions, as their is with ideologies like Nationalism as mentioned by marsbar. But that is kind of missing the elephant in the room. I do however have a problem with radical Islam and it's not just the abuse of word jihad but the doctorines also. There is nothing that IS, Al-Qaeda or the Taliban are doing that is fundamentally against the teachings of Mohammed. Summary executions of apostates, infidels, adulterers are all teachings in the Koran. I know you might say they are also in the Old Testament too, but then I don't see being carried out by Jew and Christians, although admittedly they are guilty of their own crimes, many of which ar against Muslims. However, Muslim radicals are still in the middle-ages, thanks to the writings of Al-Ghazali. Before him there was the Goldan Age of Islam, arabaic numbers, the concept of zero, algebra, navigation. After Al-Ghazali's declaration that manipulating numbers was the work of the devil it all stopped and the world lost so much influence for the good. Bizarrely, I think Iraq (Persia) might have been THE world super power of the East. But I digress.

Back to Casey. I agree with you that Casey is not radical enough. I believe she is right when she says the issues in the UK have arisen because of segrgation and the "ghettoising" of Muslims in particular (whether by choice or not), combined with recent atrocities perpertrated in the West. But in essense, her solutions are perhaps too happy-clappy social worker. A mistrust and fear of Muslims has been building in Western populations, and exponentially so since 9/11. This has of course been exploited by the shadier elements of the right to further intensify this mistrust in one another in some kind of divide and conquer strategy. Of course, the more stupid someone is, the more sucked in by it they tend to be. I know, I work with them and this place would explode (rightly) if they posted some of the things they say on here. I tend to use the Stewart Lee approach in return. So perhaps a more forced, or rather socially engineered solution may be necessary.

However, the problem of segregation in the modern socirty is on a global scale, not just national. I am , like you, pessimistic as to the solutions, but at the same time more optomistic than you. The pessimist in me sees the world going up in flames as the conflict between global jihad and the West gains a hold. Optomistically, I hope the youth of today and tomorrow will solve not only the problem of segregation, but I'm also hoping the problem of religion too.

So you may ask why are the youth of today different to the youth of yesterday? Well they have something that has only been around for about 20 years and only truly effectively for not much more than 10 years. Something we are beginning to understand the true power of, The internet. A 100 years ago people had about 20 people to talk to. When I was a kid we had telephones and all of a sudden we had over 200 people to talk to. Kids nowadays have over 2 billion people to talk to. Now that's what I call integration! If the US really want to change the Middle East for the better, stop dropping bombs and start dropping smartphones instead (and they're way cheaper) and provide good coverage. With that wealth of information to hand, religion doesn't stand a chance and perhaps Abdul will become friends with Abigail.

Bracing myself for a flaming now (but I don't mind).

In reply to Hugh J:


This is the thing. We're constantly being told how repressive and awful Islam is, but when you actually meet lots of Muslim women, every day, it's pretty obvious that they're not *all* oppressed.



I don't think religion is any help when it comes to promoting positive values such as compassion. If you want kids to find their own compelling reasons to be nice to others, you want to teach moral philosophy, and chuck religion in the bin.


Really? You don't mind the "God hates fags" lot in the states? You're alright with the religious zionists who think they've got a god-given right to the land up to the River Jordan?


This is the Harris/Degrasse Tyson view of why it's OK to leave Jews and Christians alone while you go off on a massive tyrade against Islam, characterising the latter by its extremes but the former by their moderates. I don't buy it, and never will. Every religion works the same way: you have a vague, contradictory crock of shit written down in impenetrable ancient language that everyone can have fun interpreting as they please. The number of non-Muslims who feel qualified to say that all the Muslims I know are turning their backs on the teachings of the Prophet while ISIS are holding true is frankly hilarious. How the f*ck would they know what the "true" Islam is? Have you tried to read any of what's in the Koran? It's total garbage, it doesn't make any sense! No one is qualified to say what the true teachings of the prophet are, any more than anyone is qualified to determine whether god hates or loves fags. I agree that there's a really awful strain of medieval Islam causing havoc in the world now - who could disagree? But this idea that there is some headway to be made by slagging off the entire religion under the pretense that all Muslims subscribe to the ISIS version is both bollocks, and totally unhelpful.


And the mistrust and fear is being exacerbated by the liberal intelligentsia too, by the bogus arguments of Harris et al. What does it tell you that you were surprised a Muslim woman could be an optometrist? That the impression you have of Islam might be distorted by what you read in the media?


We're not going to get any social engineering solutions, because we live in a democracy that doesn't like that kind of thing.


I think the internet has been around long enough to show us that it doesn't act the way you hope it will. It reflects back at us what we want to hear and reinforces our views. Muslims in the UK are becoming more religious, not less - it's the old guys who've been around and seen life that realise it's all a crock of shit; the young, impressionable and internet-savvy are lapping it up. Sorry I don't share your optimism. 20 years ago I thought I'd see religion fall, but in that time things have only got worse. Oh dear.

In reply to Hugh J:

British Humanist Society has a campaign against faith schools.
Well worth supporting

https://humanism.org.uk/what-you-can-do-to-help/contact-your-mp-to-oppose-p...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I don't disagree, but there are more than enough who are. (One is too many).


Again, I don't disagree about binning religion. However, there are certain aspects to religion that do promote compassion, for example The Golden Rule. I was just pointing out that we must gaurd against some kind of Orwellian nightmare.


Yes, you're right, perhaps I do have a problem with them too. But I note that you have left out the part where I say "This is because they have largely been beaten into submission by over 300 years of scientific revelations, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and the scientific philosophers Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Russell."


I still hold that Islam, as practised in many Muslim states and by the radicals globally, has a medieval philosophy that is in direct opposition to our own values of liberty. As I previously stated, I have no problem with moderates and I don't see any Christians or any Jews trying to destroy our way of life. Now, you may argue that the west is perhaps destroying the way of life for differing global populations, but this is another argument and one you are not likely to find me in disagreement with.


Perhaps so. But it's still an issue that needs adressing.


I never said I was and quite frankly I find this insulting. My family and I have been treated by quite a few Muslim doctors, some of them women. I was merely struck by what I percieved as a someone who was obviously a more devout Muslim (given she was wearing a hijab) as not following what I thought was a Islamic practice, i.e. being alone in a room with a man, especially an infidel man. However, I also freely admitted that this "probably shows my ignorance more than anything."


I have seen plenty of Muslim women in UK cities wearing (as you put it) "the full trick-or-treat get-up".


Well isn't it time the "liberal intelligensia" started doing something about it then?


???

One minute you are defending Islam and saying that there are plenty of moderates, then you are saying the young (i.e. the next generation of optometrists and doctors) are lapping up this "crock of shit"!

If you have no hope in the future, no hope in the young and no hope in the likes of Sam Harris, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Steven Weinberg, Steven Pinker, Michio Kaku, Ayaan Hirsi Ali leading us into the new enlightenment, then you are lost and I'm sorry to say, a loss to our society also. For sure their views need to be challenged too and because they are scientists they would welcome that wholeheartedly. That is the essence of science. It is through communication that we educate the people to create their own moral values. As the internet is the primary source of information, now and for the foreseeable future, the enlightened must use it to educate people with the truth and hopefully override the mumbo-jumbo hatred spread by evil doctorines.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Thanks Duncan, I shall get on to that - and spread the word.

In reply to Hugh J:


That's part of the bogus Harris et al argument. If you go to some devote Catholic country, science and philosophy have not won. Talk to the far-right religious zealots of Israel - science and philosophy have not won. Within Christianity, Judaism and Islam there are cultures that have watered down and ignored more of the nonsense and accepted more of modernity. And in other places there are cultures that are still medieval in their values. Islam, at the moment, has the most striking, influential and problematic extremist/medieval contingent of the three, but that's by no means how it has always been. It's not down to what's in the Holy Book (which is garbage in all 3 cases), it's a product of history and culture.


I agree, it's awful. But there are plenty of Christians in direct opposition to my way of life too. You're kind of implying that the "death to the West" idea that's wreaking havoc in the world at the moment is something that is central to Islam - it isn't. It's just the ISIS etc version, a political position that uses Islam as justification and motivation.


Sorry - I just spend a lot of time around women in hijabs, and they're pretty normal...


Me too, and I have a real problem with it. It's pretty clear to me that you can't go around in our country with your face covered - I can't go around in a balaclava, and these people can't go round like that. Covering your hair has no impact on anyone else. Covering your face makes identification and interaction impossible, and it isn't acceptable in public.


When I think of a solution, I'll let you know.


I'm not defending Islam, I just think that it's the same as Judaism and Christianity, i.e. a crock of shit that you can interpret however you please to suit your cultural and political position. When I say that the youngsters are lapping it up, I'm just reporting fact as reported by Casey.


Not at the moment, sorry. It's mid-December, I've got some awful virus I can't shake off, I can't take time off work, I've got some shite corporate cu*tfest to attend tomorrow morning and to top it all off Christmas is round the corner and it's still regarded as unacceptable get through the festivities by openly smoking crack. As such, hope is in short supply just now.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

OK Jon, it seems that we are pretty much on the same page about most things, though from differing backgrounds. As I've said I'm a bumpkin and am pretty sheltered from a lot a UK society. I guess you live in a city or large town (possibly up north?) Sorry to hear about the shit you've got to put up with at the moment, especially with your boss being a "f*ucking bitch" too ! Hope you are feeling better soon and get a more positive outlook. Society really needs guys like you, now more than ever.

In reply to Hugh J:


Marine le Pen, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Andrzej Duda, Norbert Hofer, Vladimir Putin?

What's really making me want to scream at the moment is that these people and their supporters constitute a real and direct threat to enlightenment humanist liberal values in the West, but the self-proclaimed "defenders of reason" are still out there actively helping the people who are trying to dismantle everything that they claim to stand for by banging on about the unique and terrifying awfulness of Islam.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Sorry, but that is absolutely untrue. There are many of the people that I listed in my earlier response that are criticising the actions of the people you list. That is certainly true of Noam Chomshy and Sam Harris (amongst others), with American "leftist" commentators like Bill Maher and our own Jon Oliver also weighing in.

(Not my dislikes - not even April20th gets those from me, I prefer so say it).

In reply to Hugh J:

Thanks. It's not so bad, just the standard state of affairs at this time of year. But she really is a f*cking stupid bitch.

As for Rdave's point, he's not saying Harris et al are intentionally or explicitly on board with Trump, Pence et al; only that their message about the unique awfulness of Islam compared to other religions is *inadvertently* helpful to what they (Trump etc) seek to achieve, i.e. push through anti-immigration and specifically anti-Muslim policies. Which I agree is very, very annoying, since I generally applaud everything that that lot (Dawkins, Degrasse Tyson, etc) say when it comes to science and philosophy.

In reply to Hugh J:


It's been a while since I read Chomsky in much depth, but I always got the impression that his view of radical Islam is that it's more a product of politics than religion - that the threat to the West from radical Islam is largely a threat the the West has brought on itself by its endless self-interested interference in the Middle East.

As for Sam Harris, this seems illuminating:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/sam-harris-thinks-ben-carson-unde...
"Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Ben Carson, in terms of the totality of their understanding of what’s happening now in the world, I’d vote for Ben Carson every time. Ben Carson is a dangerously deluded religious imbecile [...] but at the very least he can be counted on to sort of get this one right. He understands that jihadists are the enemy."

As that article continues: "Ben Carson, it should be noted, is a climate change denier, a pathological liar, an evolution skeptic, an Egyptian pyramid truther, and a noted plagiarist."

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Harris' obsession with Islam and misguided support for US foreign policy is pathological. For someone so intellectually gifted, it's quite strange, but also a brilliant example of how the human mind works: it doesn't matter how clever you are, if you compartmentalise information sufficiently, you can become totally oblivious to the most glaringly obvious inconsistencies in your thinking.

Here's quite a good response to Harris' ludicrous statement that the to believe the US created ISIS is 'delusional':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYx537kFUNU&t=181s

And here he is stumbling around in the dark when he's challenged about all the complete f*cking nobends that he's aligned himself with:

https://soundcloud.com/politeconversations/episode-17-sam-harris

I wish he'd stuck to talking about free will and consciousness, on which I agree with him wholeheartedly.

In reply to Jon Stewart & Rambling Dave:
Thank you gentlemen for the fantastic information.

Firstly, as it's the quickest to deal with, I'll deal with your post Dave. I certainly can't agree with Harris that Ben Carson would make a better President than Noam Chomsky. However, I think Sam was referring to a single policy issue here and was being somewhat dishonest and perhaps a bit trolling. Sam and Noam have had a bit of a spat recently. As far as I came make out, Noam does want to properly engage with Sam because of some of Sam's criticism to a piece of Noam's work (I may be wrong). If this is true I find it a bit sad for reasons I will go into in my comments about Jon's post. However, the first line in the AlterNet article probably illustrates why I respect Sam Harris:

"Sam Harris has made something of a career out of saying provocative things that upset both the religious right and the anti-imperialist left, . . . ."

Jon, I couldn't agree more with the views of Kyle Kulinski on the YouTube clip. I do not agree with Harris on everything. But then I don't think Sam Harris even believes everything that Sam Harris has ever said, which is a surely a good thing. However, I'm not so sure these two guys are that far apart though. A bit like you and me I suppose. I think Kyle is probably rightly trying to establish just what is Sam's stance when it comes to link between the invasion of Iraq and the rise of ISIS. America did not create ISIS, but they certainly created the conditions for it, as Kyle states. One thing that I found a little ironic was that Kyle allied himself to Dave Ruben (who I will need to check out), but in the Polite Conversation podcast it is Sam defending Ruben whilst Eiynah Mohammed-Smith is the one quite forcefully attacking him. But, on the points raised by Kyle in this clip I am in complete agreement.

The Polite Conversation podcast was truly fascinating stuff. I'm not sure if you lasted the whole 2 1/2 hours, I did and thought it really informative. As to your claim that Harris was "stumbling around in the dark" I'm not so sure. There were a couple of occasions when he was, I thought, being consciously careful about what he was saying, probably because he was aware of raising the hackles of the SJW brigade. There were a couple of times when Eiynah led him down the "primrose bordered path" to trap him, something that Harris credits her on doing brilliantly to an extreme SJW in another podcast, who proceeded to hang himself by his own petard. I thought that generally their conversation was commendably debated and get the feeling they both learned a lot from each other - surely that's the essence of debate? I think Harris has certainly mellowed in his fundamental anti-Islamic views. This has probably had a lot to do with collaborating with people like Maajid Nawaz. Indeed, he has somewhat mellowed on his anti-religion views too. For example, he believes that the term Atheism is counterproductive as it has an almost religious connotation in itself and certainly does not go after moderates so vehemently. He now simply states that by being a scientist, he can not recognise something that has not been proven, in this case, not even remotely proven. He's certainly not as extreme as Hitchens or Dawkins when it comes to religion.

The thing is, I found myself agreeing with massive parts of what both Sam and Eiynah were saying. Just as I find myself agreeing with a lot of things you or many others say on here, but we still argue, sometimes too aggressively. I think this is a massive point. Recently, I have come to believe this is view that Big Ger and a couple of others have been trying to propound. The slightly mischievous trolling from time to time does help their cause, as funny as I sometimes find it. I certainly don't agree with his views on Brexit, but I still respect them. I can see the other side of the UKC coin, but like with Trump, not everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist, but every racist voted for it. Big Ger and many others on here are not that from that latter camp and to tell the truth, they are not that far removed from us philosophically. They just are really hacked off with the SJW liberals (or illiberals as they should be more correctly known).

However, there are people who want to bring our society down that must be laughing out load at us. Just why are people like Harris and Chomsky at each others throats? There are many examples of this and it's distracting us from the really important issues. Why do you think that some of the people that Harris aligns himself with are "f*cking nobends"? I think someone who drives a truck into a crowd of innocent people including children are "f*cking nobends". I think people who carpet bomb cities are "f*cking nobends". I think people who subvert populations to force regime change are "f*cking nobends" etc, etc . . . . Surely, the reasonable (you know, those of us who truly reason) should link together to defeat these forces from whichever direction they come from? Instead I see so much energy being wasted trying to win some relatively inconsequential difference of philosophy. Let's sort those differences out when we've sorted the important stuff out. Surely it's a question of imperatives?

Stay Cool, Pat.

(No my name's not Hugh Janus (just by nature) and I'm not a postman either )

P.S. Have you listened to any recent Sam Harris podcasts? He's somewhat broadened his views. This latest one is good, I think and hope you'll be surprised:

youtube.com/watch?v=wd8BhusSF7c&

In reply to Hugh J:



Hugh Jarse?

In reply to Big Ger:

That too !

In reply to Hugh J:

Sorry, needs an edit in the first paragraph (sorry):

In reply to TobyA:


Thanks - fascinating story and well told.

In reply to Hugh J:
Thanks for that reply, really interesting, and as you say we're not exactly far apart!

I've now finally listened to the whole Polite Conversation and it's probably the best of this type of discussion I've heard.


The way it sounded to me was that Sam was called out time and time again for siding with the Douglas Murrays, Richard Spencers, Tommy Robinsons etc when presented by that load of pricks with a black-and-white fallacy. He's so quick to say it's reasonable to call for a ban on muslim immigration, and then has to be dragged by the bollock bag into conceding that as a policy idea it's both immoral and totally unworkable. Eiynah on the other hand would, every time, see how the different extreme views of the point in hand were wrong, and clearly set out the nuanced in-between position. On loop.


It's not on the same scale, is it? I can engage to some degree with what wankers like Douglas Murray are saying, and I think it's a massive bag of dogshit. I can't remotely relate to what jihadists think: they're off-the-scale bonkers, there is no argument to have with them. The fight against jihadists in my mind is something to be done by MI5 and armed police officers, whereas the fight against right-wing bell-ends is something that operates within my sphere of understanding - but not influence!


I don't see what difference it would make whether 'we' were more united in our views on this stuff. The reason we're having these discussions isn't to save the world, it's because of the personal intellectual gratification 'we' (the professionals on the podcasts or the amateurs like me on UKC) get from setting out and defending our positions; from riling the people we dislike; and receiving support from people we respect. It doesn't make any difference to the next inevitable terror attack. Discussion and debate are meaningless when the US elects Trump - I hate to remind you, but the world is f*cked!


I'm trying, but it's quite turgid this one. Both their positions are so moderate and honed it takes a lot of patience, and it's even more hard-going when you don't really agree with either. I'm going to have to have an extended Sam Harris holiday (that is *from* Sam Harris, not with/about Sam Harris) after today

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Perhaps it is possible that we have differing views on that podcast due to our own perceptions. Harris has obviously said things that you vehemently disagree with, whereas for me it's not the same, though I don't always agree with him. I can understand you not liking the immigration point of view and his obsession with Islam, it makes me wonder sometimes too. However, I think he was being very cautious with Eiynah here, due to her having tied an SJW up in knots previously and Sam knew he might be trapped by argument. I think he's also been a little flamed by Noam Chomsky recently. But, that is the problem with debate sometimes, just because someone is good at it doesn't mean that they are right. Some people find it easy to make others look an arse, that's why Corbyn sometimes struggles so badly and personally I can testify to it with my disagreements with Mrs J !!!

Back to the immigration point. You've probably heard a simple metaphor like this before, but I'll give it a little twist. You have a bowl of sweets, a thousand of them are normal sweets, 1 is poisoned with arsenic, but 5 are also pure gold. So you have, 994 people who just need our help (and we need theirs too), 5 people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Eiynah Mohammed-Smith and my optometrist, but you also have an Abu Hamza. You don't know which sweet is which, do you take one or a hundred or all of them?

It's a poor metaphor really as people are not sweets and of course there are moral implications and obligations to consider. There is despite what people think, some element of screening too. It is however, the kind of simplification that most people like and can understand and by that I don't mean the general population of UKC Off Belay forum, who I would say tend to be on the more intelligent side of society. Now, the problem is that extreme right-wingers play on the less intelligent in our society with metaphors like the one above (except they leave out the gold) or even just outright lies (like the UKIP immigration poster). However, do the people who are frightened by these scenarios not also have a valid point - that they are frightened and confused. A lack of understanding is a basis for fear and fear is the source of all discrimination, whether intentioned or not.

As for your views that people like the professional podcasters and indeed people like us won't make a difference, I have to disagree. Hurricanes and butterflies. Every little bit we do can make a difference, why do you think that arsehole April20th / winchur666 was posting his hate fuelled shite on here? I also don't think the world is f*cked, not completely anyway. Brexit was a narrow margin, where the deciding factors were issues had little or nothing to do with the EU. Trump was only elected by the vagaries of the US electoral system, Clinton got 2.5 million more votes, which is 2% more. Surely we can't just take intellectual comfort in our private universes, just to say to ourselves or anyone who'll listen this is what I believe is right.

There's no point in giving up Jon, we've got to fight to the last, it's human instinct and we have to (so to speak) "defend our island, whatever the cost may be". I'll be f*cked if I'm gonna go "gently into the night" because of the likes of Trump, Farage or any other extremist or just because of plain idiots.

P.S. This is not a private conversation between Jon and myself, please feel free to join in.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It didn't. And it's stupid.
Someone from Australia who has lived in the UK for a year gets a vote, and someone from Poland who has lived in the UK for 20 years doesn't.
It's just insanity.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Only if they have the right to remain and are registered to vote.


If they had an intense desire to vote they could always apply for citizenship. Which Polish referendums are Brits allowed to vote in?


No, it's plain common sense, though I understand why you'd confuse the two.

In reply to Big Ger:

Yes, so not why have the same rule for EU citizens who have right to remain and registered to vote ?


Indeed. And the same should apply to ALL.
Which referendum are Brits allowed to vote in Pakistan ?

Ps: I'm not saying that foreigners should all have the right to vote in the UK, I am saying the rule should be the same for everybody, or based on reciprocal agreements.


Sorry, but it's just not. It's a different rule for different countries, and it's not even reciprocal.
It's just a stupid relic of the good old empire.