Well, believing in six impossible things before breakfast is easy if you can swallow this unbelievable drivel from Ed Miliband as he tries to triangulate his party as the party of “common sense” on Immigration.
Naturally, the BBC are here to help Ed posture as the champion of “multi-ethnicity” and no really hard questions are asked of Sadiq Khan as he went to bat on the BBC Today programme.
The BBC abhors the factual argument advanced by Peter Hitchens on QT last night that when last in power Labour wilfully engaged in radical social engineering as a central part of its strategy using open borders to forcefully change the UK demographic forever. For Miliband to now pose as the friend of the indigenous UK population is surreal and yet the BBC will play along with this faux narrative, painting the Coalition and the Conservatives in particular as racists and bigots and ..god forbid..little Englanders for seeking to ensure that Bradford does not morph into Islamabad, although it may be too late in the particular case!
The BBC, like Labour, champions a multicultural agenda which is aimed at changing the face of Britain forever. Miliband can be assured an easy ride…in the same way as his “economic” policies have been soft soaped with hardly a mention of the fact Labour all but wrecked our economy.
Learn English Ed Miliband tells immigrants as he admits Labour failed to stop segregation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9744501/Learn-English-Ed-Miliband-tells-immigrants-as-he-admits-Labour-failed-to-stop-segregation.html
Ed Miliband has just admitted that multiculturalism is a failure.
Funny how those on the ‘right’ would always say that Britain was a ‘multi-ethnic’ country but not a multicultural one, and where branded by the Beeb as extremists.
But I suppose the views of the BBC have evolved to help Ed Miliband.
Here is the Peter Hitchen’s quote from Question Time.
Interesting to note the decision to cut to the peroxide sink throughout Mr. Hitchen’s answer as she shook her head.
A desire to add ‘drama’, or in hope she’d pull a Harriet and get Doddersby to pull the plug on too many home truths?
‘unbelievable drivel from Ed Miliband ‘
Kind of tautological, but was it delivered in a form of English any could grasp? Or are we due a ‘what he meant to say if he wasn’t the product of too many deserved swirlies’ series of BBC apologia again?
Does Milliband have a stutter too?
‘Does Milliband have a stutter too?’
Sort of…
A bit like a mugger apologising after he has spent the money he stole from you.
If ever you ever want to see an ultra-soft interview go and listen to Jim Naughtie interviewing Sadiq Khan on this at 7.35 or so. After Naughtie’s long opening statement Khan’s first words are “I think that’s a very fair summary, Jim”. Then Naughtie reassures him later that a lot of the listeners will hera what khan is saing and understand it. The first even remotely critical question on Labour’s record comes after 4 minutes, and when Khan says that Labour got it wrong it’s pretty much left there, no aggressive asking for an apology or analysis of it.
Contrast this with an hour or so later when Kirsty Young interviews Eric Pickles on Desert Island Discs, with a real aggressive tone in her voice. She tells him that Nadine Dorries’ comments about posh Tories out of touch “struck a chord with a lot of people” (presumably the millionaires in the nightclub business she and her husband hang out with) and referring to the Government’s policies being “misery on misery” and getting him to talk about his cufflinks so she can get in a line about “Clearly not cuts for everyone.”
Naughtie’s interview was disgraceful. He basically invited Khan to give a party political speech and barely challenged him. Just for a moment, when Khan admitted Labour had been wrong not to listen to those who had pointed out the problems, I thought Naughtie might ask Khan to apologise to these people for calling them racists for daring to criticise immigration – but no. Racists they remain in Beebland.
It seemed to me Naughtie knew what Khan wanted to come on to say and had agreed beforehand the questions to ask to allow him to do it. Hence the “that’s a pretty fair summary, Jim”.
That gentle background sound on all bBC broadcasts, is the sound of buttocks being kissed.
The only people intouch with Nadine Dorries are women of a certain age taking their hormone-related angst out on blokes, like tarty female BBC presenters.
That interview was so soft it ranked at least a 6 on The Bristol Stool Scale…
“hands up, we got it wrong”
Yeah, right, you pri*ks. Vomit inducing.
I quite like Desert Island Discs – and I like Eric Pickles.
But Kirsty Young attacked the Tories from the get-go – making outrageous statements. Pickles seemed to0 polite to give her the smack-down she richly deserved.
I switched off after a few minutes.
Yes I listened to this drivel which studiously ignored the real issue here. Labour – aided by the BBC – is beating it’s collective breast by pleading guilty (and inviting the equivalent of a police caution) to the lesser offence of not “listening” in respect of introducing policies on “integration”. For the major offence of opening Britain’s doors to the sub-continent, the charge (on Today) was not even brought.
Where I part with you DV on your analysis is the implication that the Conservatives are going to do anything to bring Labour to account on this one. Yes the BBC is set to aid Labour in anything it wishes to assert on the numbers and consequences of immigration (which will include demonisation of the Conservatives in respect of “integration”). However, the Conservatives will do nothing – less than nothing – both to demonstrate Labour’s dishonesty and, more important, to attempt to solve the problem’s created for the rest of us by the sheer numbers. The Conservatives will deal with the issue squarely on the ground prepared by Labour – and breathe a sigh of relief that they don’t have to fight on more contentious ground.
The Conservatives are conniving with Labour to hide the major reason for the housing “shortage”, the strains on the NHS, the rise in welfare costs, the over-crowding in state schools etc. There is no evidence that honesty and openness will suddenly break out in the political class. The BBC is biased alright and might hold the Conservatives to account for not doing “enough” (in Labour’s terms) but the real “enough” hasn’t even begun – and there are few signs that it will.
Well put. Nothing can be expected from the Coalition. In fact I would go so far as to say things will get worse. Cameron loathes us English as much as any deranged liberal but hides it better.
What must really worry them is what happens, and it is already becoming evident, when the ordinary English from the shires stop listening to the liberal media and political class.
The old saying applies..
They have made their bed now they must lie in it.
How many times do we have to repeat it.
There is no historical precedent for a settled people voluntarily ceding their land.
The Guardian headline is :
Ed Miliband: every Briton should speak English
the BBC:
Miliband: Too little done to integrate UK society
Is he saying Englishmen & women should speak English? No, is he saying Welshmen & women should speak both English & Welsh? No, who are these “Britons”? It’s doublespeak. Note too how he leaves out the theme of Islamic terrorism in the UK which is in fact the true litmus test of “failed integration.” Miliband is just trying to unpick a few threads of the Blair labour legacy again, while keeping hold of the jumper and wearing it.
The BBC are even reluctant to do this, or so it seems in their reporting. The Guardian is very much to the right of the BBC this morning! You get the impression that the BBC are actually more sensitive to this theme than they are to Jimmy Savile, Newsnight and Paedophile rings at the BBC, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the entire C of the BBC has played this multicultural tune as strictly as possible down to filling their studios and TV soaps with this blessed vision of non-whitedom throughout the British Broadcasting Country. Remember Greg Dyke’s “hideously white” moment. It wasn’t wrong was it? This is how the new Britain should look, it must be as diverse as possible to reflect what is really out there- ergo the BBC led the way. One can also imagine beeboids excitedly jumping up and down saying: “Look, we have been right all along to be as diverse as possible, what we have been doing, criticised by many as ‘social engineering’, dismantling so called white hegemony, getting rid of white English accents, etc., is simply reflecting how British society really is….the census figures show this now to be true….” That’s the downside I guess. Who is going to believe in a self-fulfilling prophecy now, or collusion? A political party(or parties) who irresponsibly opened the doors to immigration and a state media that encouraged it, never questioned it, and created a McCarthy style Witch-Hunt (and the BBC was and still is hysterical!) against all those voices who opposed multi-culturalism. Dave S. says above:
“There is no historical precedent for a settled people voluntarily ceding their land.”
Who will speak out? Just to take one geographical example in the UK, the demographical and linguistic obliteration of Londoners, the BBC has Boris to maintain its old posture. Only a few weeks ago the BBC were snapping at his heels for his ‘failure’ in the so called Black mentoring scheme. Drip, drip, drip.
Millipede, and The Labour Party and the BBC, all three spout absolute DRIVEL.
BBC 5 Live hanging on Miliband’s every word. And apparently vice versa. Miliband kicks off his speech with a celebration of the …….Olympics!
‘Let’s hear it it for Mo Farah, Ladies and Gentlemen’
Beyond satire. Beyond parody.
Labour/BBC perfect unity (in their diversity).
Does anyone still bother to question BBC Bias?
So Ed, multiculturalism is a big success, its just that we need to teach them to speak English and everything will be hunky dory.
Well, in the interest of integration, how about asking them to :-
Stop beating or even murdering their daughters for dating white boys.
Stop taking their young daughters to Pakistan to undergo an arranged married to some ancient relative.
Stop carrying out female circumcision.
Stop having celebrations when British soldiers are killed or maimed while trying to bring law and order to ‘Their’ countries ( which they have left )
Stop vote rigging.
Stop viewing young white girls as ‘fair game’ for their sexual perversions.
Stop having their women dress in medieval attire which shields them from the public at large.
etc etc etc. I could go on for pages.
Milliband, once again you are showing yourself as the pathetic opportunist you most certainly are, with no genuine regard for the British population.
I caught a later interview on Today with Ed West and someone who thinks multiculturalism is great and working where he lives in London
It was the tail end comment that made me pay attention ( I had just switched over from 5Dead and a discussion on football—sorry racism in football)
The comment was made that not speaking English was not a handicap to the children involved because they were outperforming all other schools, or some such crap.
So the kids of Bangladeshi Tower Hamlets (most deprived etc. etc.) are getting better educational qualifications than my old Kent Grammar school are they?
Looking through the lists of schools with the best GCSE and ‘A’ level results not one school in this area nor any other London Borough feature at all, with the exception of certain private schools or those within certain catchments areas familiar to Labour politicians!
As any BBC interviewer knows Ofsted outcomes are often predetermined based on data ranging from local social depravity to the entitlement of free school meals. Thus an inner city school rated ‘outstanding’ is relative to its area.
A ‘satisfactory’ school in a more prosperous or homogeneous area with a wider catchments area will be well ahead in examination results. So such comparisons are inaccurate and misleading.
The interviewer should have challenged the deliberately misleading statement and exposed the interviewee as an ignoramus and deceiver, he did not, leaving the impression that children from the schools quoted are educationally superior to all others.
Oh! For some outstanding or even satisfactory BBC interviewers on Today!
The liberal classes seem to be in panic mode. I suppose it has dawned on even the stupidest and most fantasy prone of them that if the white British population of London falls below 50% then we are in strange teritiory indeed.
Remember this liberal class is simply not breeding and doomed to extinction as their current obsessions clearly demonstrate. And we all know what they are. Me, I like to see a good 25 year old country girl with two or three children in tow.
Quite simply they are in a mess and it shows.
Soon the cultural war, and it is a war, will swing our way.
“So the kids of Bangladeshi Tower Hamlets (most deprived etc. etc.) are getting better educational qualifications than my old Kent Grammar school are they?
Looking through the lists of schools with the best GCSE and ‘A’ level results not one school in this area nor any other London Borough feature at all, with the exception of certain private schools or those within certain catchments areas familiar to Labour politicians!”
What these schools are getting is absolutely $hiteloads of dosh poured into them and architect designed multi million pound facilities.
School for Muslim girls in Tower Hamlets:
http://www.mulberry.towerhamlets.sch.uk/
(OK anyone CAN go there, but in practice it’s almost all Muslim)
School for black children in Brixton:
http://www.evelyngraceacademy.org/
Compare the facilities to the ‘good’ school your kids go to in the leafy suburbs and wonder which are the *advantaged* kids!
Here is my fully enriched secondary school…the diversity brings a tear to ones eye.
(It was called Grange comprehensive back in the 80’s when I attended, and was already 50% enriched even back then)
http://www.theoldhamacademynorth.com/
I suspect that school teachers are far more in favour of mass immigration than most of the population because, despite many inner city schools becoming hell holes, there would be far fewer jobs otherwise. The natives simply weren’t breeding at a great enough rate to maintain the school establishment dating from the days of the baby boom. Of course smaller class size, lower pupil teacher ratio and offering of more minority specialised courses would have been another way to keep up the numbers of teachers but it seems that some things are just too good for our kids. Thus, there is an influential and active body of state employees, most of them Labour Party supporters and Guardian readers ( probably over-represented in Question Time audiences) who prove Adam Smith’s dictum that rarely do members of the same trade or profession meet together, if only for social purposes, but the conversation turns into a conspiracy against the general public. People involved in the college/ university sector are also notable for their support of diversity and letting in as many foreign ‘students’ as possible.
Here’s my old high school Chop – http://www.burychurch.bury.sch.uk/ – and as you can see it’s white as the driven snow. Being CofE helps to keep out the riff raff.
My 2nd primary school was a CoE, and was beautiful, although now, the area has been taken over by the Bangladeshi community, as was the area of my 1st primary school, it is now classified as a “C E V A” school….I have no idea what that means.
The C.E stands for ‘Church of England’. The ‘VA’ stands for ‘Voluntary Aided’ – which relates to the amount of control the school governors and Church have in running the school.
Being CofE helps to keep out the riff raff.
For how much longer though? There are moves afoot to prevent schools ‘discriminating’ on grounds of religion! Of course we all know which schools will be damaged by this, Catholic and CofE, since who is going to choose to send their child to an Islamic, Jewish, or Sikh school (especially Islamic!)?
Milliband is calling for integration. That makes his a racist who dares to step away from the multikultural separatist ideology. Maybe his meetings should be smashed up by Cameron supported thugs from the UAF.
You don’t already have to be able to speak English to work in the public sector? Astounding. The turkeys really did vote for Christmas when they voted in New Labour.
Britain’s political class (inc BBC-NUJ) will advocate the continuing mass migration into Britain until the country is completely colonised.
For example, Britain’s political class continues to campaign for the entry of 80 million Muslim Turks into the EU. so as to speed up the Islamisation of Europe and the U.K.
As for the gullible Miliband’s ‘surprise’ at the segregation between British indigenous people and e.g. mass Islamic immigration, if Miliband understood the hostile political imperative of many Islamic tenets against non-Muslims, he would begin to understand the nature of his cataclysmic error.
Milliband referred to mixed marriages and they do at least blur the edges around otherwise segregated groups but the (sexist and illegal) iron Muslim rule that only Muslim males may marry non-Muslims while Muslim women may only marry Muslims makes it, in their case, merely a tool to further their supremacist ends. You occasionally hear some imam boast of how many people have converted to Islam each year in order to marry – it’s in the tens of thousands. Punishments for breach of this rule cover the spectrum from ostracism and harassment to assault and murder: the tenets of classical Islam are that if the authorities do not enforce shariah then the individual should do so himself , specifically by means of violence.
” the entry of 80 million Muslim Turks into the EU. ”
Don’t anyone forget it’s one of Dopey Dave Cameron’s wonderful ideas to admit these into a borderless EU. What a knob!
BBC are picking up a sound bite from Miliband about integration.
But did anyone at the BBC actually listen to Miliband peddling his barrow load of old twaddle?
Friends, Romans, countrymen….lend me your national broadcaster and I will do an ify impression of a statesman…
Of course the quality of Miliband’s thoughts are not the real issue. Who at the BBC cares if our next PM is complete bupkis? The BBC don’t need a Labour landslide at the next General Election. A Lab-Lib pact will do. Just so long as the next licence fee deal is fixed favourably.
Give me five minutes in a room with Miliband and I’ll get more than admission of mistakes. A full confession signed in his own blood seems apt.
This is well O/T but talking of being in a room with Miliband for 20 mins etc put me in mind of the terrifying book I have just found on the web (I highly recommend it) “I speak for the Silent Prisoners of the Soviets” (Tchernavin, 1935) which describes his experiences in the purges – arbitrary arrest and execution of 48 of the 49 soviet fisheries experts for “wrecking’ (i.e. not meeting the ‘plan’ to increase the fishing fleet from 17 to 500 in two years) and his arrest as the 49th his interrogation by the GPU and dispatch to a concentration camp. He escapes to the west through Finland and concludes his book with:
“The faith of Russians in world justice may be childish, but these prisoners and their families, and the widows and fatherless children of executed ” wreckers’ still think that the world does not know what is happening to them. They cannot believe that a Christian civilization will knowingly permit such monstrous cruelties to continue.”
Of course the ‘Left’ simply ridiculed any attack on the perfect society – if you can stomach it read some of the vile bilge vomited out in “Soviet Communism – a New Civilisation” By Beatrice and Sidney Webb. Two ardent Stalin lovers who thought that he did no wrong in ‘cutting dead wood’ and , of course, are still stars in the pantheon of the left (there are plenty of radio 4 hagiographies available) These affluent aristocrats were secular saints and were founders of the Fabians, the LSE, and were preeminent – dominant – members of the Labour Party. Now, Prole attacked the Daily Mail a couple of days ago on the basis that it had fascist affiliations. A rather tired traditional leftwing attack. Nevertheless it is true – they did in the 1930’s. However we are suffering from a degree of historical blindness in only being shown one side of the arguement- the Mail may have been fascist but the entire British, US and European left was infested with Stalinists even when they knew about the purges, famines, deportations, executions etc.
I live in hope that perhaps the BBC could offer us some balancing historical perspective by providing an examination of the attitudes towards Soviet 1930’s communism amongst the British leftist ‘intelligensia’ say from1924 to 1964
Ha – they really went to town on Hobsbawn didn’t they!
Watching Question Time last night I was struck by something nobody in the panel or the audience seems to have noticed.
Will Self defended immigration on the grounds of his hatred of the English.
He did not argue that immigration is unimportant, or that it’s importance is exaggerated, or that integration has been a success, or that immigration cannot be stopped, he based his defence of immigration on the grounds that he hates the racist and imperialist English.
He also hates the British monarchy, and (like the Trotskyite producer of BBC Question Time) he would no doubt add if asked to elaborate, he hates the bourgeois capitalist system which England created and exported – because a free society based on private property leads to inequality.
Everybody (in the presumably English audience) sat passively (Peter Hitchens was listened to in virtual silence as he did his usual spiel about how much he hates the Tories) while Self made a speech that could with very few changes have been made by Hitler or Stalin – or for that matter Philip II, Napoleon, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I thought it was refreshingly honest. I cannot recall if he got a round of applause.
In other words Self hates his own privileged background, and himself. And just like his fellow poseurs, he calls this hatred art.
Will Self is “an Oxford educated, middle-class metropolitan who…is about as much at the heart of the establishment as you can get, a place he has occupied almost from the start of his career.”
The last published book by his father (a Leftist who taught “Public Administration” at the London School of Economics before he moved to Australia) was called “Rolling back the Market” and his Jewish mother (his parents who had separated before he was born) had planned a termination but was persuaded not to by the psychotherapist Anthony Storr) left her first husband back in New York and arrived in London [with her 9 year old son in tow] after having got pregnant after her affair with the (also) married Peter Self.
Will Self describes their relationship as “riven by animosity” and “not so much an open marriage as an open sore” (Self himself is divorced, with four children) and he described his mother (who taught them to loathe his father) as having “a hair trigger temper” whose domineering presence she enforced through a “combination of fear, physical force…and sarcasm”.
His parents “intellectually snobbish parents” could agree only to spoil (and show an obvious preference over his siblings) Will Self because of his intelligence.
Self began smoking marijuana when he was 12, frequented local pubs at 14. and began injecting heroin at 17. His mother gave him money to support his habit.
When he graduated from Oxford (with a Third Class degree) his mother paid for his drug treatment.
I could go on……….His background explains why Self is so full of hate for the happy and well adjusted – Miliband and Balls ought to take him on as their advisor, given that they also had loathsome left-wing academics as parents (Balls father campaigned against Grammar Schools before sending his own children to a Public School and Ralph Miliband was an immigrant who never wavered in his support for Communism:
“One boiling afternoon during his first summer in London, he went to Highgate cemetery, found Karl Marx’s grave and, standing with his fist clenched, swore “my own private oath that I would be faithful to the workers’ cause”. Not that he intended to remain a worker himself: he found clearing bombsites “an arduous business” and felt a distance from his fellow labourers that was partly a matter of nationality but also a matter of aspirations. He wanted to be an intellectual.”
Ralph Miliband was an immigrant who never wavered in his support for Communism:
But still allowed his eldest son to cheat his way into Oxford with poor A levels on ascheme designed to help underprivileged children from inner city schools! And the Camden Town school the Millibands went to was not so very ‘underprivileged’ either, being almost entirely ethnic British with a mix of council estate workign class and the relatively well off childrne of upper middle class private home owners in Camden and Hampstead who either couldnt afford, or chose not to spend, their money on private education.
I have long since regarded him as a buffoon. Speaking for effect and ,like a small child, determind to annoy his elders.
Ignore him.
Will Self is typical of that breed of self loathing liberals so accurately observed by George Orwell.
They see every other race, culture and religion as being superior to that of the British.
He makes my flesh crawl.
The bBBC ‘news’ item starts with more Labour propaganda.
Its second sentence is The Labour leader called for more proficiency in the English language as part of his One Nation ideal.
Completely irrelevant to Miliband’s hijacking of the One Nation phrase to describe his class-warfare politics, but, hey, we must be sure to get the pro-Labour plug into a story about how badly the liars have treated the rest of us.
‘One Nation?’ Now where have I hear that before?
It all depends which One Nation you are on about. In National Socialist Germany what they deemed to be the problematic minority was hauled off for mass extermination. Though I am opposed to mass immigration, multi-culturalism, and all the intellectual baggage that goes with it I just hope we don’t end up at a place in our island’s history where the indigenous population seek a similar solution. But I fear I am see it. History is littered with examples of peoples being pushed too far. Their rulers too thought they were docile and biddable and that such extreme behaviours would not be seen.
bBBC and LibLabCons would rather gas the ethnic majority.
Yes no good trying to bolt the stable door after you have let several million unwanted horses in! But of course this is just an attempt to stop ordinary people from getting annoyed at what Labour did and the dutiful BBC is now conniving with the anti British movement to cover their tracks. What a pity the BBC didn’t tell us the truth about immigration 10 or 20 years ago, but then that wouldn’t have suited their purpose . They can reveal some of the truth now because it a done deal.
I just wish that the liberal elite had to live in places like Bradford for a few months, that would change their views and wake them up. I hope that those parts of the country presently free from the multiethnic/multicultural disease can remain free from it somehow.
From our ‘you couldn’t make it up’ correspondent:
Just trailed on BBC R4, PM’s response to Milliband’s disingenuous speech: “We interview two Labour activists who campaigned against the BNP to ask if Milliband has done enough to satisfy voters.”
I’d have thought it more reasonable to ask the opinion of those who suffered from mass immigration whether they feel Milliband’s half-arsed and utterly insincere apology satisfied them, rather than seek the echo chamber opinions of Messrs Trot and Spart.
Biased – through and through.
They should ask me, I have plenty of enrichment background.
Born in Oldham in 1971, was multikulti edukatedz through the comprehensive system there.
Moved to a town not to far from culturally enriched Bolton, worked in ethnically cleansed Cheetham Hill, Manchester (during the 9/11 attacks no less, that was a real eye opener, I can tell you!), below the immigration office in Liverpool, Moved to enriched Watford to live with my girlfriend who comes from a similar enrichment filled background (born in colonized Luton)
Yet, not once, not EVER have I been asked my opinion on immigration.
Mind you, I am not a Labour activist, therefore, my opinion would be null, void, and above all…WASIST!!!!
Just heard Mair on PM interviewing two Labour activists, guiding them gently through Miliband’s speech and asking ‘what they thought’. They were allowed to frame the discussion around Eastern European immigration 2006-2010 (‘not 300,000 as expected, but nearer 700,000’ – Mair politely ignoring the original Labour estimate of 16,000), how Europe is ‘a good thing’ (of course it is! no argument from our Eddie there) – so therefore our hands our tied, how we ‘need immigration’, no mention of unemployment, no mention of Pakistan, India or Africa, no mention of the statospheric rise in immigration pre-2006, lots of talk of the BNP and how they told lies about benefits.
In other words, standard BBC ‘cosy little chat’ when Labour are in the studio having to discuss a little local difficulty.
Utter bloody disgrace. And as for Miliband saying the economy was easily able to absorb the immigrants but some communities weren’t – defies belief.
Well done, BBC, Memory Hole on top form. ‘Everything faded into mist. The past was erased. The erasure ewas forgotten. The lie became the truth.’
In a way Miliband was right – “the economy was easily able to absorb the immigrants”.
Mass immigration drives wages down through the law of supply and demand (and brown envelopes to politicians). This is why unemployment figures have recently fallen but so have wages – more skinflint bosses are hiring.
Pity Stephanie Flanders can’t get off the casting couch and explain this to viewers.
Today had the Migration Watch geezer this morning. He’s on a lot.
Classic confirmation bias from BBBC
It can hardly be avoided given the furore about the Census figures.
I suppose he could have been blacklisted but that would have looked a bit obvious.
We are in the early stages of a culture war and had better get used to it. The BBC and the liberal media are not on my side in this war briefly characterised as the counter revolution against the 68ers.
It can do as it pleases and so can I. After all all is fair in love and war.
By the way. Nobody has yet answered the question I posed earlier this week.
Where has the white British population now missing from London gone and why ?
Any chance a BBC talking head will raise it ?
I can only answer for myself. I left because I deeply resented having become a minority in my home community. Local shops, such as butchers, barbers, bakers, were now selling Halal meats or had become “community centes”, though not for MY community.
It’s my own fault, I guess, I just didn’t reach out and embrace diversity. Must be something wrong with me…
London’s great. All life is here. A genuine world city. But very British.
Man up.
The irony in that fourth sentence.
Is that the best you can do? Still waiting for an answer to my question. Where have the white British gone and why? Around 15% since 2001. If it is that great I would have thought we would be clamouring to live there.
I agree ‘all life’ is indeed there – the good the bad and the ugly. You may like this, but the point is that no one in Britain was asked if they wanted ‘all life’ (with their parents, spouses, dependents, social mores, religious practices, pre-existing animosities and prejudices etc etc) to decamp from “X” and arrive in London, and the BBC has never reflected this. (for the sake of brevity I won’t go into the socialist engineering of demographics by the left…)
As for your “man up” comment that is pompous, odious and offensive (and incidentally sexist). So we simply have to accept it because you like it? Shut up, stop complaining, it’s for your own good, you are too stupid to know what’s best so we didn’t ask you. A tad arrogant eh?
Please explain how you measured ‘very British’ (just like the Olympic opening ceremony eh…) – personally I find travelling on a train where there are 14 non-english languages spoken to be a very ‘foreign’ experience as this has manifestly never been a typical British characteristic – we only ever speak English!
A ka boo hoo.
Sorry I offended you.
But FFS person up,
Do you live in London?
Ever more childish. Still waiting for an answer.
Where have they gone and why have the 15% white British left London?
If the population of London has substantially increased then there may be the same number of white people (or even more), but a lower percentage of the increased total.
You’ve made a category error with your data I think. Explain how you get 15%
Numbers down from 4.3m to 3.7. As per census.
Yes, you’re right: my apologies.
Why?
No idea. Got rich, moved out?
Is that relevant? Do I have to have experience of living in Detroit for example before I voice an opinion on its suitability as a home? Anyway I am a commuter. Unfortunately I cannot afford to ***live*** there as I would be expected to pay for it rather than given gratis, tax free, 24K housing benefit.
BTW with respect to being offended: in the extremely unlikely event that there is a BBC series mocking all holy books, as per the “room 101” debate, I am sure that there will be absolutely no ensuing mayhem as absolutely everyone in all communities in tolerant, balanced, respectful multi-faith Britain will “man up” and take it on the chin. So please feel free to offend me, the worst that can happen is that I will write a few rude words. It’s not as if by offending someone you could spark of riots all over the world that destroy life and property
I’ve lived here for over 20 years, currently in one of its mythical ‘shitholes.’ It is a truly great city. It has got better. And I love it.
It is full of white middle class people like me I assure you. In fact, we rule the place.
I lived in SE2 for 51 of my 56 years,
I was born in the same PLA terraced house that my father was born in
my uncle lived in the one next door.
None of my family or the boys (now men) I went to school with live there now.We have all been driven out.
No one ever asked us if we wanted
demographic change forced on us
We were never invited to give an opinion never engaged in debate by those forcing it.
And when despite threats and vilification we did make our voice heard it was ignored then as it is now
This is the testimony of my experience no amount historical revision ,retrospective censorship or sneering bourgeois contempt can change it .
London is a shithole
Rather more a ‘curates egg’ good in parts
” London’s great. All life is here.”
London’s a big place Jim. I’m sure there are wonderful parts as you say. Chelsea must be nice, perhaps Knightbridge, or even notting hill (it wasn’t in the 50’s but hey times move on).
When you are speaking from the cesspit areas come back and preach to us like will self did.
I am in darkest SE London. Chelsea and Knightsbridge are very foreign feeling indeed. You know very little about London.
Guess you don’t live in the gay-friendly Tower Hamlets then, Jim? Not that it matters as, just like our out of touch politicians, you are living in your little London bubble thinking it’s England, or even Britain, which it’s not.
Suggest you ‘man up’ yourself and try living in Blackburn or Oldham for a few years for an ever-so-slightly ‘edgier’ multicultural experience. I suspect you wouldn’t last a month before scurrying back to your ‘world city’ which was still the nation’s capital last I heard – but hey, what say do fascist lefties like yourself and the other Self give us indigenous English any more? You and your ilk didn’t create your multicultural nirvanha via the ballot box, that’s for sure.
Dave s,
“Where has the white British population now missing from London gone and why?”
Nobody can give you a definite answer because the figures don’t exist. However (back of the envelope stuff I’m afraid) about 3.5 million people have emmigrated overseas from the UK in the last ten years and London accounts for 13% of the total UK population.
From personal experience, London has always been a fairly transient place.
(20 years ago it was full of Scousers, 10 years ago you couldn’t move for Glaswegians).
People generally come for work and then leave again when there are more jobs back where they came from.
Interesting to note that whilst having the highest percentage of “foreign born” people; London is also, by far, the wealthiest region of the entire country.
Strange huh?
Are you pretending to be stupid Dez?
Why is London is the wealthiest region of the country.
What is London? What makes it different from other places in England?
See, it took you less than a second.
Let us broaden it out and look at the country as a whole. Who generates the wealth?
Ethnic group Percentage in poverty
Bangladeshi 65%
Pakistani 55%
Black African 45%
Black Caribbean 30%
Indian 25%
White British 20%
Hmm. So not all immigrant groups do equally well.
If you are in prison you are not contributing much to the national wealth. What percentage in prison are Muslim?
BELGIUM – 35%
DENMARK – 20%
GREAT BRITAIN – 11%
FRANCE – 50%-70%
GERMANY – 5%
ITALY – 13%
NETHERLANDS – 26%
NORWAY – Over 30%
SPAIN – 70%
1 in 5 males in young offender institutions in the UK identified themselves as Muslim in 2011/12, compared with 16% in 2010/11.
So why are Hindus and Sikhs doing so much better despite (nearly all of them) deriving from the same sub-continent?
Remind me again why a massive increase in Muslim immigrants is so good for this country? Is it Muslim tolerance of Jews? Their tolerance of gay men? Their religious tolerance? Their contribution to sexual equality?
Many years ago I was walking in Ilford and asked a young man if somebody if he knew the location of a particular street. He ignored me, his eyes filled with hate.
Now I dislike rudeness so I stepped in front of him and put my face right up against his and gave him another opportunity to answer, which he kindly did.
At the time I was puzzled. I was not dressed any differently. I was perfectly polite. Why the hatred? This was in about the year 2000. I believe I now understand.
Of course I could be wrong, but my strong impression now is that he hated white people. At that time his race (or religion) had not even crossed my mind. I was just asking the way.
Multiculturalism has now educated me. No need to ask the way now. I see it all too clearly. If the Left triumph the result is always the same – exactly the same.
Wild,
You can gargle all you want. London has the highest immigrant population in the UK and London is also he richest part of the UK.
“…so I stepped in front of him and put my face right up against his… …Of course I could be wrong, but my strong impression now is that he hated white people.”
Even from your own particular version of events it’s quite obvious you are an asshole of incredible proportions. Have you considered perhaps that’s the reason he didn’t like you very much?
“Even from your own particular version of events it’s quite obvious you are an asshole of incredible proportions. Have you considered perhaps that’s the reason he didn’t like you very much?”
A few years ago I threw a thug off a bus and (to my amazement the bus burst out into a round of applause) – all the younger men were looking sheepishly at their feet until that point.
Yes. It was a very stupid thing to do, and I will not do it again. Anybody who seeks to uphold reasonable standards of politeness is clearly an “arsehole” as you put it. Because the wise thing to do is let the police deal with it.
However, it is entirely characteristic of you that you take the side of the impolite young man on the street. I am not going to speculate why this might be the case.
Dez says: ‘Interesting to note that whilst having the highest percentage of “foreign born” people; London is also, by far, the wealthiest region of the entire country’.
Nowt to do with it being the financial services capital of the world, then?
Like – duh!
Twaddle, Jim and you know it.
What possible excuse was there for Mair’s brown-nosing two Labour activists on PM today?
Why should anyone (who isn’t a Labour activist) give a damn what they think?
And no, the occasional interview with someone from Migration Watch most assuredly does not balance this stream of liberal sewage.
I come across the movers out frequently. My area is a prime destination.
All my rather large family is now out. The last of my family left this year from Acton to Brighton. One of my daughter’s sisters in law also left this year. Clapham to Haywards Heath.
I have no intention of going into the reasons. They are self evident to most of us here. Realism rules if you like.
The demographic is interesting.
I will give you a clue. Children of school age. That is the tipping point.
This refusal to discuss what is in reality white flight is typical of liberalism at it’s most unrealistic.
London may well be all those things you celebrate it for but it is no longer a place I , an old Englishman , who knew it well, feel any attachment to and sadly neither do many of the younger generation of native English.
Abuse us all you want but you will change nothing by doing so. The die is cast and increasingly we will turn our backs on London.
If anybody thinks this is a tolerable state of affairs then they are insane. I fear for the future which none of us can predict.
What is certain is that nothing is inevitable and the liberal belief in the inevitability of what they see as progress is an illusion.
They don’t “believe” in anything, just kickbacks from cheap labour employees. And don’t think you’re safe out in the sticks – they’re spreading everywhere. If anyone thinks this comment “racist” – well, what’s wrong with putting your own kind first? Minus the establishment and its thought-police trolls, of course.
employers, not employees.
” What is certain is that nothing is inevitable ”
Yes, the future is certainly going to be interesting. I agree.
Your analysis is logical, sensible and true.
The census clearly shows that our now-foreign capital city is very different from the rest of Britain. But our state broadcaster refuses to recognise the fact.
Perhaps the TV-tax should only apply those who live in London?
Sadly not so very different. Much of Britain is similar (Birmingham, Manchester, Leicester) and ALL of Britain is heading the same way fast.
What is certain is that nothing is inevitable and the liberal belief in the inevitability of what they see as progress is an illusion.
Oh so true. While the lights are on and fresh water and gas still flows and the shelves of Tesco are stacked high with food, there is a complacent assumption that this state of affairs will always continue, and all will be well. History shows otherwise.
“The BBC abhors the factual argument advanced by Peter Hitchens on QT last night that when last in power Labour wilfully engaged in radical social engineering as a central part of its strategy…”
It’s not a “factual argument”; it’s a complete fiction put about by gullible fools such as Peter Hitchens. But fair play to Hitchens – he makes a very nice living out of being determinately ignorant.
Too bad his sycophants don’t have quite the same excuse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
Really Dez?….not a “Factual argument” you say?…come on now blossom, you know you are telling porkies, what’s worse, you are making yourself look even more foolish than ever.
Let’s get this right. Former Blair adviser Andrew Neather said –
“the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity…it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland….nervous ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.”
So Labour is into mass immigration for bungs from cheap labour employers. Why else drive traditional voters into the arms of the BNP?
To attribute misguided Marxist motives to Labour, as Hitchens (and some people on this blog) do is an extremely stupid Tory fantasy, worthy only of a pub bore..
Besides, the Tories are obviously into mass immigration too – clearly for the same reason.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/betrayal-of-british-working-class.htmlq=betrayalh
That second URL should be –
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/betrayal-of-british-working-class.html
Ian Hills,
“New Labour” allowed an increase in immigration because there was a skills shortage at the time, which they thought was a brake on the economy. You might have forgotten but around the year 2000 the UK was booming and there was a running joke about how it was impossible to find a plumber (or they would turn up in a Porsche with an 18 month waiting list|).
There were also endless discussions about importing a younger workforce into the NHS in order to care for an increasingly aged native population.
The Labour Government made no secret of the fact that it wanted to increase immigration for it’s economic benefits.
How soon people forget.
Andrew Neather did little more but recount that some Labour Party Activists thought the policy would have the added bonus of reducing support for far-right parties such as the BNP;
“-even if this wasn’t its main purpose-”
“That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.”, Neather said.
There you have it; the main purpose of Labour’s immigration policy was to increase economic growth – nothing else.
Unfortunately, Hitchens’ conspiracy theories are completely bogus and based on little more than his own paranoid wish-fulfilment fantasies.
Kind of like B-BBC…
There are no economic benefits associated with mass immigration. When so-called benefits are quoted it is largely based on tax revenues versus benefit payments, or an overall increase in the country’s GDP. It is necessary to take a more holistic view. If you increase the population by 7% in ten years, as reported this week, broadly speaking you increase the demand for infrastructure at the same amount. That means: 7% more housing, 7% more fresh water required, 7% more sewage disposal, 7% more roads, 7% more food production and distribution, 7% more airports, 7% more schools, 7% more hospitals, 7% more energy usage, 7% more pollution et al. The cost of this is not met by a few more billions in tax revenue each year (sic); rather, during the course of a decade it amounts to close to a trillion pounds.
There are then the other costs. How much did the lives lost in 7/7 cost, or what value can be ascribed to the young lives destroyed by imported paedophile gangs in Rochdale, Bradford and elsewhere? What is the social cost to people living in fear in the proximity of third world ghettoes in some of Britain’s cities? The economics of immigration are iceberg in nature – 90% of it lies hidden and it’s the part that does the damage.
There is also a more fundamental point: whether there is an economic benefit or not is irrelevant. No amount of money can compensate for the negative effects of what has happened. If you gave people a choice of things as they were 25 years ago or as they are now but with an extra £10 in their pocket each week, you’d find that a majority of people are very nostalgic for 1987.
You can keep spinning your fantasies and lies, Dez, but no one is going to believe you, save for a few demented Guardianistas and Beeboids.
If Blair’s motivation for opening the flood gates was to encourage skilled migrants, why did he open them to Africa and the sub-continent?
Don’t tell me we urgently needed more Somali astrophysicists.
Neather let the cat out of the bag (though one of the Eagles had done so at the time – I can never remember which of them) and no amount of fluff from you can get it back in again.
“In October 2009 Neather wrote an article for the London Evening Standard entitled “Don’t listen to the whingers – London needs immigrants”. In this piece he argued that immigration to Britain has a positive effect, but politicians have done a poor job of expressing this. “What’s missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from”, he said; “the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.”
“I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls… That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit”, continued Neather. “The PIU’s reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy… Eventually published in January 2001, [it] focused heavily on the labour market case.”
“But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”, he went on to write. “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far. Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing.”
He concluded that “there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote. This shone through even in the published report: the ‘social outcomes’ it talks about are solely those for immigrants.”
Neather says his words were later exaggerated by excitable right-wingers who see plots everywhere.
What the idiot doesn’t realise that people did not see plots so much as the revelation of a shallow, dangerous mindset that seemed pervasive among an entire segment of politicians who blithely espoused a policy that could possibly have had appalling consequences of which they may even have been dimly aware, given their reluctance to even contemplate the effect it would have on the working class population who traditionally constituted their core vote -but who, in England, which is 85% of the population of Britain- were no longer sufficiently numerous to give Labour a long term viable electoral future.
85% is quite numerous enough. Try “corruption”.
“immigration to Britain has a positive effect” – such as
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20723462
Chop; “Yet, not once, not EVER have I been asked my opinion on immigration.”
It’s all too much; “You may like this, but the point is that no one in Britain was asked…”
Stewart S; “No one ever asked us if we wanted demographic change forced on us.”
Ahh, the eternal bleating of poor little B-BBC victims.
Perhaps none of you have noticed; but there are Government elections every four or five years, when you can vote for which ever anti-immigration party you want.
“you can vote for which ever anti-immigration party you want.”
Since when have General Elections ever been about the single issue of immigration? Even if they were, maybe you could point out the place in ANY of their manifestos, at ANY time, where one of the major political parties pledged themselves to endorsing a policy of opening the immigration floodgates?
According to the general consensus on this blog; stopping immigration would solve the housing problem, reduce unemployment, increase wages, get rid of most violent crime, improve the NHS, cut taxation and mean we could all freely make jokes about nig-nogs like in the good old days.
How is that a single issue?
You do not even believe the things you type, and so what is the point of drawing attention to the obvious flaws in your argument? Work them out for yourself.
I have never really believed in the conspirancy theory of mass immigration. The left is noteworthy only for it’s incompetence. They are too stupid to conspire successfully.
I would remind those apologists for the current state of affairs that it is a complete lack of thought that has led us to the current situation.
The left deals in hopes and unreality not sense.
So we now have white flight in London and other cities.
Real resentment amongst the ethnic majority.
A liberal class increasingly desperate to pretend all is well.
Did this class have any knowledge of history ?
If they did then they hid it well.
No settled population, let alone an ancient one, has ever ceded it’s land voluntarily.
The policy was probably carried out for the usual reasons. Money.
As if a people should be experimented with for such a base motive.
This issue is just one in the forming culture war that is between the liberal heirs to the 68ers and those who reject their absurdities and self indulgent approach to life and reality.
‘The left is noteworthy only for it’s incompetence. They are too stupid to conspire successfully.
I disagree. They are very well-organised with a large network of pressure groups, ‘charities, think tanks, quangos etc which frame the agenda for this country along with those hard lefties who have infiltrated every echelon of public life and become the new ‘establishment’. You need look no further than the success they’ve had with the man-made global warming scandal – a hard left political agenda thinly disguised as science – or mass immigration, where they completely bypassed our democratic system. And then, of course, there’s the BBC…..
Where they are totally lacking is in common sense – so they don’t understand, for example, that the money trees they think will fund their nutjob ideologies don’t actually exist. That’s why you’ll always be banging your head against a brick wall trying to argue with the likes of jimdezscott.
A conspiracy doesn’t demand a smoke-filled basement and a written agenda. In this case it simply required the off-manfesto desire of the political class that had seized power by 1997, in Labour, the ‘new establishment’ and the media, led by the BBC.
Those apologists who try to excuse this act of treachery by describing it as some sort of accident, or motivated by nothing more than a desire for cheap labour, are completely wrong. This was a willful, deliberate act, for all that Neather and his fellow travellers now like to pretend otherwise.
The Left’s love affair with immigration as part of its auto immune disease (post colonial guilt) was being signposted as far back as the 1960s.
Why would anyone who had listened to the BBC’s incessant stream of softening-up propaganda not have anticipated what Labour did when it finally grabbed power?
Did anyone notice what Miliband did in his speech? He actually proposed cutting one area of government spending (translation services) to fund another (English lessons).
Is this a first for the money tree-huggers?
How Miliband, (Labour), Clegg, (Lib Dems), Cameron, (Tories) sell out the British people on mass immigration.
The political class ( inc BBC-NUJ), still campaign for an open door policy for the mass colonisation of Britain.
They are unwilling, and unable to set meaningful upper limits to actual numbers of immigrants allowed in to the U.K each year; instead they campaign for 80 million Muslim Turks to become E.U. citizens.
All three political parties refuse to criticise the impact of Islamisation in Britain in case they lose votes from the three million Muslims already here (and increasing).
The bBC replies to the Milliband speech:
British without English
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20728634
And here is all you need to know how the bBC feels about ensuring everybody speaks English in the UK:
We should “see with the eyes of compassion” and respect the human rights of older people to be able to live with their families, and not insist on their learning English.
Maybe that explains why so many bBC reporters can’t be understood when they issue their latest article.
The bBC, the traitors in our Midst