Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ShotgunGold

BBC article - Utter utter RUBBISH

274 posts in this topic

Chris, the simple fact is that there are many people living in say, Bradford, from Bangladeshi/Pakistani heritage (either born here or there) that cannot speak English, lots.

That's not to say it is exclusively them.

there may well be.

that doesn't mean they aren't or shouldn't be allowed to live here.

What matters is how many-'lots' and 'many' doesn't mean anything. How old they are, where they were born, the limits that their non english speaking places on them, their gender and so on.

If you can't speak the language of the country you have made home then you have limitations placed upon yourself and you are isolated.

People from places like Poland are taught nglish in school, people who immigrate, or originate in other countries aren't. Also many people who need the use of interpreters aren't immigrants but asylum seekers. I doubt whether learning English is the top of the priorities of people attempting to escape persecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, very few of these migrants are fleeing persecution. Most are here for economic or marriage reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyway, what should this culture that is better than multiculturalism consist of?

How is it possible to impose it?

How will thousands of years of multiculturalism be unravelled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, very few of these migrants are fleeing persecution. Most are here for economic or marriage reasons.

immigrants mostly come here for economic reasons. But there is also another strand of incomers who are asylum seekers with a different status and different issues: that's all I was saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the worst countries to be a woman if you don't want to get battered by your partner is New Zealand.

A good example of where immigrants are not to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In India, everyone learns English in school because it is the common language for everyone to understand. I once had to look after two Indian waste engineers who were over here on a WHO-sponsored visit. One was from Calcutta, one was from Madras;they spoke to each other in English because both normally spoke differing languages (neither being English).

Given that Pakistan and Bangladesh also have several languages and were previously part of India, I would think that most schools over there would have English as a statutory subject, like French was when I was in school.

The fact that so many of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants cannot speak any English is probably indicative of their coming from communities and families that historically not had any great regard for education. Their religious leaders possibly don't want their worshippers to be too educated (especially the women oes), or else they might start thinking for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Sorry little or no value judgement? Did you read the article:

In favour of "his judgement":

"and what emerges is a much more positive story than some headlines would make you think."

"I think the evidence suggests it is also about working class aspiration and economic success."

"the dream of escaping to the country became a reality for tens of thousands of urban white Britons. But did they leave willingly or were they forced to move?"

"often having prospered from the housing boom and the capital's economic growth - cashed in their assets and bought themselves that little cottage in the countryside or by the sea."

"It is a story of aspiration. It is a story of success."

Taking in other factors:

"Some white British may have moved because their neighbourhood has been culturally transformed, the tea rooms and restaurants replaced by takeaway chicken shops and halal supermarkets serving the new arrivals."

But of course that hasn't even bothered to be investigated. Yet you shall see from the comments below from Londoners that they've left because they're neighbourhoods have been rapidly changing. Some comments have even said that they've moved because their son/daughters school barely has any English-speaking children in it.

Whatever you want to label it, the vast majority of people feel intimidated if they are surrounded by people of another culture. That's not saying that that culture is bad or that ours is superior, but it is DIFFERENT. The fact that this premise does not even get probed by the article is hardly impartial?

2) I was referring to POLITICS, not the press. The press are actually one of the few places that do discuss this, and whilst I don't agree entirely with the way they do it, I am glad that they do do it. If you were discuss this in certain workplaces, then you would be sacked. It never gets discussed in Politics, particularly in the arenas of the House Of Commons. Yes there are a few more important issues like the Economy, however it is quite clear from the British public that they see this as a VERY important issue and I don't think the Politicians represent that. I think the three main parties in particular like to keep quiet over the issue, and like has been mentioned, I doubt they few politicians actually live in areas that are effected (and if it is in their constituency then they live "richer" areas due to their salary.

3) Well what more can I say:

POINT 1: I think the real problem is the EXTENT and PACE of all this. I am not against people moving to another country and as you will probably remind me it has been happening ever since humans first walked. However I don't like the EXTENT - I think that with a population of 70 million already which has been rapidly accelerating I think we need to start trying to get that figure down. Secondly, pace: let's not forget that it was only in the late 1950s that the first wave of immigration happened. This recent wave (let's say 1997 or 2001-2011) has been much greater. Essentially you are seeing these huge changes in ONE generation and I think it would be better for the country to see them in THREE or FOUR generations (the way to do that would be caps)

POINT 2: As a nation we need to compete economically with other nations. It is a basic premise of the way our world currently is. It is all relative: if one man gets richer than one man gets poorer. It seems very harsh, but get away from Utopian visions, and it is fact. To what extent are migrants really helping Britain economically? I can see Britain as a currently in the long term getting poorer and I do see this as one of the contributing factors. The effects this is having on schools, NHS and welfare must not be understated.

POINT 3: Again label me a racist if you want, but I see different opinions concerning different "groups" (shall I say) forming. Again this is part of human nature. Let's just say that there have been certain groups that, how can I put this, are less inclined to "mingle" with the rest of us. There has been one group that have been ascribed certain characteristics: "that we are superior (because of our faith)", "that you cannot marry out of the religion", "that we don't want to be governed or enforced in the same way as the rest of the country" right the way through to (unbelievably) "this is our patch" and "we have our own laws, we don't abide by British ones" to even "we aim to fundamentally change British values". No surprises that group I am referring to, but I don't believe people with these beliefs should be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom as I believe they go against our core ones.

To what extent (if at all) will these threats or headlines or whatever you want to call them be taken to - I guess only time will truly tell. But I can tell you one thing: the men making the decisions over these issues will be DEAD before they find out.

POINT 4: This is not quite as widespread or indeed as natural as you think. When you look at the world as a whole then there are remarkably few areas (or countries or cities) that this is really happening. Obviously the prime example is the United States (which to be fair as always been a melting pot for a very long time now), but really you are looking at certain cities in Western Europe and Australia and a few other countries. Again don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying that migration isn't happening in Russia, China, Japan, India, Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East and South America: I'm saying it is not happening to the same extent.

Hence this is why I consider this an experiment for Britain. But because it is quite revolutionally and new (in the same way 1917 USSR was a new experiment in the world), with really only the United States as any kind of example (though a different one), I do fear what repercussions this can all have. Repercussions that are unknown at the moment.

Pretty much answered in above post I hope.

Yes of course, issues like this need to be looked at. Again it is all about the whole "wanting to mingle" in my opinion. I know I would (and my parents would) be happy to marry into any race or religion but it does seem like a lot of people moving to the UK don't hold those views.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with the first phrase: "imposed".

I believe British culture should change at a slower pace (more akin to the cultures of other countries) than it is doing now.

I believe that those moving to Britain should expect to abide by fundamental British principles and values

I believe that those moving to Britain should expect to genuinely contribute something towards the country (particularly economically), to a greater extent even then many who are already here

I believe that those moving to Britain should have a good grasp of English

I believe that those moving to Britain should not be entitled to the same state benefits that British people enjoy until a certain period

I believe that those that have recently moved to Britain and commit crimes should have their permission to settle revoked

I believe Britain as a country should look towards ways of slowly lowering our overall population

Or quite simply, if that is too much to enforce: limit the overall number of migrants allowed to settle in Britain by creating a low, annual, unmovable quota.

what pace might that be? What countries are you thinking of?

what are those principles and values? I thought we had laws that we have to obey and that people could have what principles and values they like under that law.

most do contribute to the economy since they come here to find work. There is plenty of information about the contribution to the economy of people from a pakistani/bangladeshi/indian background.

do you include asylum seekers in this? many people from an immigrant background couldn't speak English when they arrived here and have gone on to become valuable members of society. Presumably they should have been

refused entry. What if some but not all of a family speak English? Should that family be split up?

Are immigrants entitled to the same state benefits as the rest of the population? Asylum seekers certainly aren't.

foreign nationals who commit crimes can be and are extradited, or they are imprisoned in the UK. This works for UK nationals who commit crimes in other countries also.

Arguably the main issue associated with the UK population isn't size(although it is increasing), but age. There is a growing element of the polulation who no longer work or can no longer work because of their age and associated issues, yet the demand for people with certain skills, work ethics, and youth on their side increases.

Right let's talk about this UK culture which you and others want to replace multiculturalism with. What've you got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see anyone wanting to do away with, or replace multiculturalism Chris. Perhaps some people are concerned with the level of immigration or the way that their community has changed pretty quickly and they feel like the outsiders now. What is your answer for them? Put up and shut up? UK culture is exactly that, UK culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see anyone wanting to do away with, or replace multiculturalism Chris. Perhaps some people are concerned with the level of immigration or the way that their community has changed pretty quickly and they feel like the outsiders now. What is your answer for them? Put up and shut up? UK culture is exactly that, UK culture.

'I really don't want this country to become multicultural': that's shotgun gold in his/her original post. He she seemin g not to have realised that it's been multicutural for its entire existence.

I think your point about changeing communities is a valid one, but it isn't exacxtly new. It's always been part of the urban scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'I really don't want this country to become multicultural': that's shotgun gold in his/her original post. He she seemin g not to have realised that it's been multicutural for its entire existence.

I think your point about changeing communities is a valid one, but it isn't exacxtly new. It's always been part of the urban scene.

Communities have always changed; but not quite so quickly and so drastically as some places have done today.

Britain has not always been that multicultural though. Certain parts have had 'foreigners' living there for a long time and there have been areas that are or were 'Jewish' or whatever but en bloc areas (big areas too) where you can walk for a while and hear no English being spoken? no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about English people who move to Gwynedd?

Or is the Welsh language not as importamt

The Welsh language is important, but it's tedious to have to list every British language everytime. Next time I'll remember to include Scots, Scottiish Gaelic, Irish, Cornish and British Sign Langauge in the list as well as Welsh and English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are differing levels of domestic violence by background and culture. I'm told - though I haven't checked - that one of the worst countries to be a woman if you don't want to get battered by your partner is New Zealand. So it would be worthy of discussion.

Out of interest, is that the local population or the immigrants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am frustrated that this issue cannot be talked about openly, despite our "liberal freedoms".

Up to five pages now.

##### liberals, supressing debate. How dare they!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'I really don't want this country to become multicultural': that's shotgun gold in his/her original post.

But it's a tricky thing. What does it really mean. If it means a big melting pot of people all broadly getting along and living to a large extent within a framework of rules that allow people to express themselves, then it's fine. This is, roughly, how London works.

If it means monoethnic ghettoes where cultural practices that should have been abandoned in the stone age are still prevalent then there's a problem. Oldham, parts of Bradford, appear to work like this.

Multiculturalism is fine if it means decent food and a cornucopia of languages overheard on the Tube. When it means respecting the right of families to mutilate their children in the name of tradition, that's not on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communities have always changed; but not quite so quickly and so drastically as some places have done today.

Britain has not always been that multicultural though. Certain parts have had 'foreigners' living there for a long time and there have been areas that are or were 'Jewish' or whatever but en bloc areas (big areas too) where you can walk for a while and hear no English being spoken? no.

I honestly don't know about that: and I'm not sure you do...it's just an impression

surely what you describe in your last paragraph is multiculturalism.

If what people are saying about language is the right way to go: Britain's jews would have never been allowed here, neither woulkd the german jewish children fleeing the nazis(and there was plenty of opposition to tha)t, the huguenots, the hungarians in 1956 and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up to five pages now.

##### liberals, supressing debate. How dare they!

Well, it's only got this far because I intervened and asked people to stop labelling each other unnecessarily. It was going down the usual path by that point. :dry:

I think there is often an inability on the part of a lot of people to acknowledge how others feel on subjects like this (on all sides too: you're either categorised a pinko liberal or a borderline racist) and that leads to a lack of engagement and name calling in place of genuine discussion.

This thread will stay open so long as it remains a genuine discussion and complies with the T&Cs of the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that so many of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants cannot speak any English is probably indicative of their coming from communities and families that historically not had any great regard for education. Their religious leaders possibly don't want their worshippers to be too educated (especially the women oes), or else they might start thinking for themselves.

I don't think it is much to do with not valuing education. They had little access to education and hence may not be literate in their own language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, February 22, 2013 - No reason given

I labelled someone making an entirely unsubstantiated point about the positive and negative characteristics of people purely on grounds of their race as a racist.

I do apologise. What word should I have used?

I also, at no point, have said that he should be silenced.

No, but by naming calling you shift the debate on to whether or not he is racist and his original point gets lost. It comes down to the same thing.

It is not an unsubstantiated point, it is based on his personal experience, this might not be particularly academic but what gets forgotten is that statistics on crimes committed by race or religion usually aren't available to the public so this is the only kind of evidence. Not to mention that fans of multiculturalism are quite fond of talking about their experiences.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted · Hidden by John Drake, February 22, 2013 - No reason given

Thanks for explaining what my point was, I'd foolishly assumed it was something completely different.

If someone wishes to avoid being mistaken for a Racist then they should perhaps avoid using Racist turns of phrase like

[/font][/color]

This is not a case of the dissenters being labelled Racist, it is a case of Racists being labelled Racist.

Or do I mean something different? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain.

He didn't say anything racist. You are quite happy for the "unfair treatment" of black people to be discussed in those terms, you do it yourself. You just play the race card because you disagree with him. Try using facts.

Share this post


Link to post

But it's a tricky thing. What does it really mean. If it means a big melting pot of people all broadly getting along and living to a large extent within a framework of rules that allow people to express themselves, then it's fine. This is, roughly, how London works.

If it means monoethnic ghettoes where cultural practices that should have been abandoned in the stone age are still prevalent then there's a problem. Oldham, parts of Bradford, appear to work like this.

Multiculturalism is fine if it means decent food and a cornucopia of languages overheard on the Tube. When it means respecting the right of families to mutilate their children in the name of tradition, that's not on.

A big melting pot is an example of mult-racialism not multiculturalism. The multicultural phrase is "the big salad bowl" whereby there is no assimilation or mixing just disperate communities living alongside each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Welsh language is important, but it's tedious to have to list every British language everytime. Next time I'll remember to include Scots, Scottiish Gaelic, Irish, Cornish and British Sign Langauge in the list as well as Welsh and English.

I think you missed my point (or i didn't get it across) the necessity to speak the langugue of the country you are settling in was deemed unecessary when people moved west into Wales. The Welsh people realised that their heritage and culture was being errdoed (as you alluded to in your first post), so they fought back, however the English still prevails. Gwynedd is probably the only area where you will hear welsh being spoken as a matter of course and is the first languge of many people in the area.

We are not in danger of this happening in the inner city areas of Emgland due to:

- Not every immigrant will speak the same languge hence no common tongue to take over

- English (as history has proven) is a very invaisve languge, is assimilates any langugue it encounters, hence we have multiple names for the same thing (Fort, Castle, Bastion etc)

Therefore the inability of an individual to speak English is not on it's own a problem for the greater society. Problem comes when a large influx of eccomomically strong immigrants with a single common tongue start to move into a country. Enlgand is far from that suitation, and the English languge is more than capable of adapting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you missed my point (or i didn't get it across) the necessity to speak the language of the country you are settling in was deemed unecessary when people moved west into Wales. The Welsh people realised that their heritage and culture was being errdoed (as you alluded to in your first post), so they fought back, however the English still prevails. Gwynedd is probably the only area where you will hear welsh being spoken as a matter of course and is the first languge of many people in the area.

It is only very recently that teaching the Welsh language in schools was made legal, which is why English made such inroads into the country over the centuries. Whether the language recovers and spreads or not will take several generations to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's a tricky thing. What does it really mean. If it means a big melting pot of people all broadly getting along and living to a large extent within a framework of rules that allow people to express themselves, then it's fine. This is, roughly, how London works.

If it means monoethnic ghettoes where cultural practices that should have been abandoned in the stone age are still prevalent then there's a problem. Oldham, parts of Bradford, appear to work like this.

Multiculturalism is fine if it means decent food and a cornucopia of languages overheard on the Tube. When it means respecting the right of families to mutilate their children in the name of tradition, that's not on.

It's roughly how parts of London work. There are genuine concerns about, for example, Tower Hamlets. Those concerns include the deliberate denying of the English language and education to second generation girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only very recently that teaching the Welsh language in schools was made legal, which is why English made such inroads into the country over the centuries. Whether the language recovers and spreads or not will take several generations to find out.

The number of speakers declined in the last census - and the language has slipped under 50% in Ceredigion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017