Well, David, passivity, placatory noises by the police and special servicdes, and moralistic hectoring (of the victims) from Tony Blair don't seem to have done anything to break "the cycle of violence" - which was all one sided.

Weak people are always victimised. Strong people who will predictably fight back harder than the protagonists tend to be left alone.

Give violence a chance.

Don't do that to me! As I read your post I was already composing a horrified rebuttal in my head. Only when I got to the 'violence should not be condoned' paragraph did I remember that you're Samizdata's resident puckish satirist. More fool me.

Excellent article.

Tim - I think T Blair & Co need to know how angry the British people are. For the past eight years they have been able to fool themselves that their anondyne prescriptions have been working. But they are not and never did. People suppressed their sense of outrage. As Tony's hordes of socialist counsellors will say in "I feel your pain" tones, "Repressing your feelings is never good for you."

While Bair's finding his inner David Niven, the British ordinary people have been keeping quiet about their inner Rocky.

What do you mean Satirist? thats exactly what has happened. British people never asked for 'multi-culturalism' it was forced on them by our leaders who wished to reduce national identity across Europe after WW2.

Verity and Dave, I know what you mean. It was David's bit about ASBOs that bothered me (when I first read it before realising it was satire). I know this sounds rather Daily Mail but where I live in Essex there are hordes of menacing youth on the streets night after night, and I find it hard to summon up much sympathy for them, especially when they threaten the property of my loved ones and me (as happened recently). However disaffected the British working class might be, for all the perfectly valid reasons you mention, I still find it hard to accept that a white teenager replete with baseball cap and bling who deliberately bumps into me on the street and swears at me when I look at him disapprovingly is doing so because he's been forced into that position by multiculturalism. If we're not going to allow Muslim bombers the excuse of oppression then we shouldn't permit white working-class thugs any similar justificaion for their actions (and I know you weren't saying that).

Why does everyone keep calling these bums "working class"? Do they actually work?

"Give violence a chance."
Damn straight.

David Carr

Spot on.

Thus despised, impoverished and persecuted, is it any wonder that some of their activists have taken it into their hands to strike back? ... Instead, they are forced to use what few pitiful resources they do have in a despairing bid to restore some dignity to their lives.

I urge - nay, I implore - Guardianistas, senior Police Officers and liberal bedwetters everywhere to judge less and understand more, not to condemn but to seek and address the root causes of such despair.

And if not then as the great PJ O'Rourke says: Give War a Chance.

Well Tim I think thats more to do with the break down of the traditional family, and the fact so many are on 'welfare'.

Pete_London - of course, I was paraphrasing the great PJ O'Rourke. I wonder what he makes of this?

If the British government will not defend the British people in their own country, preferring instead to mouth anodyne inanities (I could quote a hundred or so but it would interfere with the coherence of this sentence) before getting back to the important non-issues of global warming, debt cancellation for Africa and posing for photos; and if the British police officially deny any possibility of the words 'terrorist' and 'islam' being conjoined when the evidence says they're lying; and if the imans or mullahs or whatever, will not speak out with vigour and heartfelt anger - or, in fact, will not speak a complete sentence without adding the word "... but", and leaders like their Muslim councils and Muslim parliaments and whatever will not speak out without tacking on that conjunction of negation of everything they just said, then who is to speak with sanity in this war?

It may have to be the British themselves, and they may do it their own way in their own islands. They have been remarkably patient.

Verity, good for you! Absolutely spot-on and it's about bloody time someone had the intestinal fortitude to say it.

What do you mean Satirist? thats exactly what has happened. British people never asked for 'multi-culturalism' it was forced on them by our leaders who wished to reduce national identity across Europe after WW2.

I disagree. I feel the major wave of new Commonwealth immigration from the late 40's to the late 60's was fuelled by a perceived economic need for cheap labour as Britain got its economy going again after the war. Why are so many people from Pakistan living in old northern mill towns? It's because they were brought over to work in the old northern mills. Since the mills aren't there any more, their reason for being here has largely gone, but they have settled here, they are legally here, and they aren't going anywhere. Instead they are living in very tight-knit, insular communities, still largely based around where they came from in Pakistan.

I have more sympathy for your view about immigration in the NuLabor period, when the need for immigrants became a fetish for our leaders, and the wise bearded wonder David "that little lad needs his dad" Blunkett said he could see no upper limit to immigration to the vast rolling steppes of our scarcely populated island. One million a year? Two million? No answer.

So to sum up, I think we had about twenty years of mass immigration to provide workers for industries which no longer exist. Economic recessions from the 70's onward, combined with immigration controls, largely put an end to this mass immigration for a generation, until NuLabor cranked it up again for reasons which they have never bothered to share with the peons. Why should the little people worry their heads when we can leave things to men of the intellectual capacity and sheer moral integrity of Toni Bliar, John "Two Fists" Prescott and Charles "Mirror Cracker" Clarke?

If a few anti-Muslim riots achieved no more than to pressure the police to enforce anti-hate speech laws to curb the filth being preached by radical muslims, and to impress on the peaceful Muslims the cost of harbouring extremists then I'd regard that as a positive outcome.
If Blair won't listen to the people then perhaps its time the people began to make him.

Keith writes:

"If Blair won't listen to the people then perhaps its time the people began to make him."

There's clearly something strange in the air. Tonight's flagship of the Fuckwit Fleet (BBC's Newsnight ) carried a piece about the dubious "benefits" of multiculturalism so balanced that it almost made sense.

An astute friend of mine from the USA remarked earlier this week that she had detected a rapid re-arranging of the seating on the deck of the good ship BBC. I told her I thought she was wrong. I might yet have to apologise for that error.

The delicious irony of a BBC interviewer challenging an almost archetypal flat-vowelled local Labour councillor by suggesting he'd had his head in the multiculti sand for the past few decades, was almost priceless. After all, it was the BBC and its fellow travellers who stuck the poor devil's head in the stuff in the first place.

How like the Left not even to have the grace to apologise.

John K - Your post is well-argued. Yes, they were brought in to work in t'mills an t' mills closed down. Immigration should similarly have closed down (and opportunities for repatriation afforded people who in 10 or 20 years had never figured out that the national language of the country they were living in is English. In other words, harshly put, they should have been repatriated with lump sums which would still have been cheaper than keeping them and their populous progeny on the dole for the next 50 years yet they could have gone back to their villages rich and respected.

Their presence has been anachronous since then - there is absolutely no point in them - and they have become easy prey to the new class of mullahs and the entire Muslim edifice that has been allowed to have been constructed in Britain.

They never assimilated. They were also encouraged, squatting in their council-provided flats and cooking over their dung stoves, to find a sense of grievance against country which had given riches beyond their dreams.

Blair, for his own personal political reasons ramped up "immigration" - don't make me laugh! - after he slithered under the door of Downing St to increase Labour's constituency. The same reason "postal voting" never an issue before, even in an age before British people had cars, became a pet project for all those houses chopped up into flats, every one of them containing multiple wives who can't read English.

British people have appealed in vain to their representatives that the toxins of Islamic - antiethetical to British liberty - Pakistani immigration was spreading through normal British society (this little bint who took Luton to court to let her wear her creepy outfit to school because it was "religious"). I wonder if a 15-year old boy, because he was a sincere Wiccan, would have had a judge's permission to come to school naked during the summer months?

Nope. The trade's all one-way.

These Muslims,with their ferrety eyed disapproval of a culture they didn't understand, yet had cringingly begged on their knees to get into, never lost opportunities to impose themselves and their religion on the indigenes, who had absorbed foreigners for centuries sans souci - because this gang came in as "settlers" and by now they had imans and mullahs and mosques and all that shit. No reason to assimilate, as all other immigrants throughout the history of the British Isles have done to their benefit - and ours.

Just be a sulky passenger and, inexplicably, watch it work for you.

"No reason to assimilate, as all other immigrants throughout the history of the British Isles have done to their benefit - and ours. "

Exactly.

As Verity says, and if anyone wants to mention the BNP they can drop it.

The delicious irony of a BBC interviewer challenging an almost archetypal flat-vowelled local Labour councillor by suggesting he'd had his head in the multiculti sand for the past few decades, was almost priceless. After all, it was the BBC and its fellow travellers who stuck the poor devil's head in the stuff in the first place.

I too saw this, and it was perhaps a significant piece of television. The BBC man had actually done his homework, and talked to the local people, and found out that the officially sanctioned view that that particular part of Leeds was a well integrated community was so much bullshit. One thing the whites and Asians agreed on was that they were not integrated at all. Not even slightly. The only integration was between whites and blacks, who were united against the Asians. That's not really what the NuLabor diversity respecters mean when they mumble into their beards (and that's just the women) about how well the communities are integrated.

When the reporter put these facts (for such they are) to the councillor he looked like he had just taken a jab to the solar plexus. It was just not fair, the BBC was not meant to do such things. After doing a goldfish out of water impression for a few seconds, all he could say was that the area must be integrated because the council had spent £86 million in the last ten years in the city on various projects, and no doubt, though he didn't say it, many, many outreach workers. That's the official view it seems. If you piss £86 million up a wall in the name of community relations, then by the magical power of public spending, sorry, investment, you must have good community relations. QED. The fact that white and black kids on one hand, and Asian kids on the other, are busy carving Glasgow smiles into each others' faces with Stanley knives is not even a blip on this guy's radar.

To think we laughed at the bureaucrats in the USSR who used to send falsified reports to their superiors about the ever increasing production of useless pig iron. The Peoples' Republic of South Yorkshire makes them look like real amateurs.

Thanks, Pete_London. They cannot get past my question: how many people have the BNP murdered or maimed? How many exactly? 754, for example?

You not may care for them, but they are a legal British political party and if they had killed or maimed a single person, they would have been dragged up before the law and dealt with, and rightly so, obviously, as we are a country of law. They have operated within the legal limits accorded them by British law. Let us not get into these little moral equivalency clauses, because there aren't any, in law.

As much as it depresses me, I find there is little I can disagree with in Verity's post.

I do disagree with the implication that all Islamic immigrants are worthless, as this is a generalisation that is both untrue and unnecessary. There are enough examples of those who have integrated to suggest that it is possible, and therefore anyone arguing otherwise runs a risk of appearing to be acting on prejudice rather than facts.

My personal suspicion is that integration occurs pretty rapidly in situations where immigrants mix regularly with the host culture. This mixing requires a vibrant, dynamic society; Northen mill towns, with their high unemployment and lack of social amenities do not provide the opportunities for this to occur. This is why the bombers were from Leeds and not London.

What is clear is that the state cannot make integration work and, in many cases, by trying to help it only hinders the process. Whatever the solution to the problem, more "initiatives" from local councils is not the answer. Nor are summits of well-meaning but powerless "community leaders". These will simply not be able to effect the changes in the everyday lives of immigrant communities that are required.

I reject the idea that repatriation is the solution; it may have been a solution some decades ago - I lack the knowledge to make that judgement. But "repatriation" of people who have never even been to the countries of their grandparents is a non-starter. Whatever the theoretical merits of the idea, it's simply not going to happen. Integration has to be made to work; it is possible, but it will require a radically new approach.

It is a problem that Tony Blair is singularly ill-suited to; like Clinton, he is a crisis-manager, a man who measures his effectiveness in how late into the night he can work trying to "find solutions" to problems. He is incapable of admitting that the solution is not within his powers to implement, that no amount of tough-talk, negotiation, persuasion or politics will bring about a real solution. And so we will have a series of high-level meetings at Downing Street, and nobody will stop to think about just why multi-culturalism has been such a failure outside of London.

"But "repatriation" of people who have never even been to the countries of their grandparents is a non-starter. '
Rob, a lot of these people have never been to the country their parents migrated to, either. They just live in it.

G Cooper et al, I said on the blog of this parish yesterday that there was something in the air. We know our own people, and this was enough. I said yesterday there was a spirit of backlash in the air. I felt it very strongly, and it strengthens. And lo! Tony and his disciples are having to listen to strangers to their constituencies: THE BRITISH!

Let me add something else: if it comes to street clashes, the British (indigenous and Hindu and W Indian, Sikh police officers in the streets will not hurt their fellow Brits. Sorry, Tone, old chap, but we Brits do cleave together.

Rob writes:

"I reject the idea that repatriation is the solution; it may have been a solution some decades ago - I lack the knowledge to make that judgement. But "repatriation" of people who have never even been to the countries of their grandparents is a non-starter"

Why?

When it is to these cultural sinks that they return to refill on poison, or import brides, why should we not just shrug and send them there on a one-way ticket?

I must stress I mean this only in the context of those who hate the country they have infested. My next-door neighbours are Moslems and a sweeter, kinder bunch you couldn't hope to meet.

In as much as I would take to the streets to expel the scum who loathe us, I would just as soon take to the same streets in defence of my neighbours.

It s a question of appropriate response. And deportation should not be ruled-out.

I'm really confused. How can the moral equivalance, multicultural cheerleaders among the British intelligensia be so judgemental about working class fellow countrymen. Would Marx have gone as far?

A view (OK, a Rant) from out on the Pacific Rim . . .

Celts. Romans. Picts. Jutes. Angles. Saxons. Danes. Frisians. Normans. With each successive invasion, years of war, upheaval, and a permanent change of British civilization. After many generations of misery, post-1066 Britain developed THE most advanced and cultured civilization the world has seen (Yanks can admit that - after all, we're an offshoot of that civilization.) Your ancestors paid a big price for Britain. Generations worked, fought and died to build what you (still) have.

Your civilization has two adversaries today: Masses of foreigners seeking a better life, and a deluded Left that dreams of a "Multicultural" society of "Equality."

The current crop of Foreigners will bring change far more drastic than that brought by previous invaders. And the Left must destroy the currently existing society before they can build the one they want. These two groups are natural allies, because both have one first goal - to ERASE you.

Understand: The British have a perfect right to BE British, with all that has implied for several centuries now. The Foreigners, no matter how sympathetic most individuals may seem, have NO right to take or overwhelm your civilization. The Left, no matter how much they believe in their utopian fantasy, has no right to give your civilization away. And you, my cousins, have absolutely no right whatsoever to ALLOW these people to take, and/or to give away your heritage.

Damn it, the world will be so much poorer if there is not always an England.

/ Rant off.

G Cooper - Precisely! Malcontents - out! And that includes their clergy, who we are not obliged to put up with, in any case. It's like roaches that get into your house.

Before I left Britain, I had an incident regarding a neighbour's smoke alarm - she drank a little -, and one of the two police officers who answered the call was obviously an Islamic, and he was totally British in language and attitude and was very engaged in helping. Who would not want people like that in their community? In fact, I found myself speaking more to him than to the other officer because he was so interested in finding out

But there are thousands of toxic little Paki uber-Allahs embedded in Britain who should not be in our country. Their grandparents should have been sent "home" - because it is always, after four generations "home" -years ago after their economic viability in the mills no longer applied.

And a damn fine rant it was too, froggie. :o)

I expect brilliant writing on this site. However, this surpasses all. The moral relativists and terrorist apologists ought to read this and reflect. Thanks for the stiletto of logic, once again.

Second Keith's post, froggie.

Frogman writes:

The current crop of Foreigners will bring change far more drastic than that brought by previous invaders

I think that overstates the case quite significantly. As discussed, many of these immigrant communities are culturally isolated and this has the effect of limiting the change they can bring about in wider British culture just as much as it limits the effect of British culture on them.

As for Verity's "toxic Paki uber-Allahs", whilst the turn of phrase is amusing, I again think there is a risk of overstating the case.

Many of these people simply don't know any better - their horizons have never been widened to allow a full appreciation of what their role in British society could be. They are caught between two unpalatable options - continue on the margins of society, or leave the country. Whilst it's clear that Verity favours the latter option (both personally and for others!), I don't think all that many people would willingly go "back" to Pakistan (assuming Pakistan will take them?). Even if leaving the country is the best option, it's not our place to decide that for them.

Now, there is a distinct risk here of saying "oh, the deprivation!" and concluding that what these people need is "investment" - probably tied in with "community initiatives" to "foster cooperation" and "boost self-esteem". This is, of course, not the answer.

I think the debate is actually shifting in the right direction as time has revealed the difference between those immigrants who integrated and those who did not. There are now substantial voices amongst the ethnic minorities which call for the end of multi-culturalism (Trevor Philips being the most notable example). It is dawning on people, even those who previously wholeheartedly supported multiculturalism, that living in Britain means becoming British. This does not mean losing other cultural heritage, but Britain has never required people to throw off their cultural heritage to be British, based as it is on a mix of different national and regional cultures.

It must be remembered that many of those who support multiculturalism do so only because they believe it is the best solution - in other words, they are being pragmatic. If it can be demonstrated that there is a better alternative, as is starting to happen, opinions will quickly change.

For us, the challenge is to refine and articulate the alternative. We cannot retreat to the "just send 'em all back to Pakistan" line. There can be no question of forcible repatriation, though a tough policy on deporting those guilty of serious crime would be legitimate. However, this is only a tiny part of the answer and the rest of the answer currently lies beyond me. I will be interested to see if anyone else sees further.

INNER DAVID NIVEN ????

What an insult to Niven and compliment to Bliar.

The outer David Niven was well mannered, pleasant, friendly, very, um, attractive to women, a good game shot, and honest, none of which fit the other slug.

Inside, Niven was among other things brave. He had gone through Sandhurst and been a regular Army officer, then on a whim resigned and gone to California. An A list Hollywood actor just cresting his new career, he threw that away to return to England when the war broke out. He did all he could to get into the war, first as a flier since he was a pilot, but the established authorities weren't interested. A chance meeting with a senior Rifle Brigade officer got him in. He made a couple of movies, but mainly served in Phantom, a reconnaissance unit whose job basically was to barrel around in front of the Army until shot at by Germans, thus locating the enemy. By all accounts he was a very good officer, though some considered that he was unnecessarily eager for combat. His nickname was in fact "killer". When he returned from the war he never used his service for advertisement, rather refusing to talk about it.

He was universally praised by those he worked with, not for his skills, but for his cooperative and easy to get along with nature. Niven was also well known for his generosity to those who had fallen on hard times, especially English film crew and actors.

Nothing at ALL like that in the greasy lawyer of Islington.

Yes, yes, Staghounds - it has become a term of derision for Tone. Don't worry.

John K, I don't believe this whole thing that we needed immigrants because we needed cheap labour, you can always say that regardless of the conditions. If our economy is doing well people say we need more foreigners to fill the jobs, if our economy is performing poorly people say we need more 'highly motivated' immigrants to boast performance and innovation.
Its just an excuse by mostly leftists to try to change our country.

I don't personally have a problem with the immigration that happened during the 50's and 60's, back then the people coming saw themselves as British and wanted to be British. It wasn't so much multi-culturalism as multi-racialism. Now its changed, we are giving asylum to people who want to overthrow our democracy.
There should be a law that no asylum can be given to anyone who is a threat to the people already here. (if it exists already its clearly not enforced)

I think that overstates the case quite significantly. As discussed, many of these immigrant communities are culturally isolated and this has the effect of limiting the change they can bring about in wider British culture just as much as it limits the effect of British culture on them

For now.

However, the problem isn't static. The increase in the Asian-British population continues apace. From continuing immigration, from higher birthrates in Asian communities, from relatively lower birthrates among ethnic British (for lack of a better term at the moment.) They won't STAY isolated.

The historical invaders of the British Isles were overwhelmingly Europeans, who spoke closely related tongues and carried related cultures. Asian cultures are far more distant ethnically, linguistically, religiously, and morally. When the Asian minority grows to a sufficiently large portion of the population, the common culture cannot but change. And change more drastically than when the invading influence was a horde of Europeans.

Saxons were rough, but they didn't bring Sharia.

Kieth, Verity,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm never quite sure what response I'll get to my periodic rants.

F

Right-wing extremists? What are they demanding the government shrink by force or something?

These people aren’t gonna become more enraged because of bloody CCTV cameras. They’re racists. These violent hooligans and extreme racists deserve to be here no more than a lying Asylum Seeker or Illegal Immigrant. They’re a curse on the collective gene-pool; if anyone should be deported it should be them… oh wait, you’re being satirical. Aren’t you?

Having not much else better to do (we were both working the next day, so no ethanol-fuelled all-nighter), my brother and I spent last Friday night watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade again. When the bonfire scene came up ("My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land.") I remarked "God help the muslims if they wake THAT sentiment up again."

They have.

I have no particular sympathy for either mob of lunatics any more than I would about Nazis vs Communists - I'm concerned about those caught in the cross-fire during and the ugly politics afterwards. There are no Churchills about the place as I can see, only various shades of Roosevelt, Petain, and Stalin. Bloody wonderful.

JJM

John K, I don't believe this whole thing that we needed immigrants because we needed cheap labour, you can always say that regardless of the conditions. If our economy is doing well people say we need more foreigners to fill the jobs, if our economy is performing poorly people say we need more 'highly motivated' immigrants to boast performance and innovation.

I do feel it is correct to say that Pakistani immigrants came to the north in the 50's and 60's because there was work to be had in the mills which were still a major employer back then. I'm sure the mill owners did not care who they employed so long as the work was done.

I'd like to know more about the process by which these people were recruited from Pakistan, I don't know if agencies were involved. I do know that the immigrants tended to come from a few areas of Pakistan, and to this day still live in communities based on where they came from in the old country. Since they also tend to source wives and husbands from over there, there is even less integration than there might have been.

But I'm sure the local employers in the 50's did not give a toss about multi-culturalism, they just wanted cheap workers.

I saw an Asian chap on Newsnight last week. He was well educated and articulate, and said that before the last election he had been employed to go round some of these old mill towns to get Asians to register to vote and get involved in the democratic process (more NuLabor make work programmes no doubt, but let that pass). He said he had had almost no luck, the Asian communities up there are very isolated, ill-educated and inward-looking, and there was very little desire to get involved in the British elections.

I have noticed in recent days that when young Asians are being interviewed they often speak English with quite thick accents, even though they must have been born here. English is still a foreign language to them. This is just an outrage. The only hope for these people is to integrate with mainstream society. If they keep to their isolated linguistic and religious ghettoes no good can come of it, for them or for us. If we don't drop the multi-culti bullshit now, then when?

Frogman, your rant was on target.

There are two components working to destroy British society and western civilization, the left and Islam.

While the threat from Islam is new, the left has a long history of allying itself with any enemy of freedom, democracy and capitalism. Hence their support for the different forms of fascism in the last hundred years or so. They have not yet openly thrown their lot in with the Islamics but you can already see that they are preparing to fight much harder against the forces working to maintain law and order than they are against terrorism itself.

A show of nationalistic resistance on the part of the British people may be the catalyst that drives the dedicated leftists to expose themselves as the allies of fascism and the enemies of Britain that they really are. This has to happen in order to make those Brits, who believe the left is a benign force working to eliminate poverty and racism etc., see their political mentors for what they really are.

Until the left is exposed as the society-destroying virus it is, we have no hope of dealing with the threat from Islam.

Reading comments on blogs frequently makes me feel like a pilgrim in an unholy land.

Dwight, one of the fundamental principles of liberty is the right to freedom of thought, including freedom of religion. The right to observe one's own religion ideals is not something that applies only to watered-down CoE Christians, it applies to every faith.

Of course, that right does not protect those carrying out acts of violence. Nor does it protect those who organise such acts. But it emphatically does protect those who are able to keep their religious faith within the framework of a liberal society - the vast majority of British Muslims have demonstrated themselves capable of doing so.

This does not detract from the fact that there are real problems, but, at the risk of sounding like a Guardian columnist, blaming Islam isn't the answer.

To use an example: Communists are opposed to freedom and the Western way of life, but we never had to deport those Communists who lived here. So long as they did not impose their views on others, and abided by the law, they were left to their own devices. This is entirely in keeping with their rights as free citizens of a liberal democracy. Those who carried out criminal acts in the pursuit of their beliefs were dealt with by the law, as any other citizen would be.

The British are still an overwhelming majority in our own country, and we should have a bit more faith and confidence in our own strength rather than fretting over the actions of a few extremists. We are strong enough to tolerate dissent and strong enough to deal with the challenges of integration. When faced with a clear choice and a clear option to choose integration with British society, I believe that the vast majority of British Muslims will choose integration.

John K, I dont doubt you are right that immigrants came to work in these Mill towns. What I am saying is I don't believe the politicial excuse for this large scale immigration was genuine. You can ofcourse say we needed the cheap labour, but its not an arguement because we always need cheap labour.

Rob you are right about freedom of thought. So why then would we support a religion who wants to take it away with Sharia law?
This is not like years ago when the BNP were the fascists and the foreigners were innocent, now its the foreigners who are the bigger threat to our freedoms, should we just sit back and pretend there is no problem?

"A recent poll commissioned by The Guardian found that 84 percent of Muslims surveyed were against the use of violence for political means, but only 33 percent of Muslims said they wanted more integration into mainstream British culture. Almost half of those surveyed said their Muslim leadership did not represent their views".

Rob, I too feel like a pilgrim in an unholy land, unfortunately it's the land of my ancestors and I don't have any place to go where I won't feel like a pilgrim.

I'm not so sure that blaming Islam isn't the answer. Anywhere Islam is in a minority Islamics call for freedom and equality of religion, while everywhere Islam is in a majority those things don't exist. Everything in between is being contested with blood, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and now Britain.

Thanks for the lecture on the fundamentals of liberty, freedom of thought etc. It's important to remember those things. Might I remind you however that THE fundamental of liberty is it's own survival? Our love and respect for liberty is not a suicide pact.

Our time will have run out when these people finally develop, buy or steal the materials and technology to make nuclear explosions. That is a finite time in the future largely out of our control.

Rob, I agree with you about the right to observe one's own religous ideals, but can you point out one country where Islam is the dominant religion where that applies? Do you really believe that, should devout Muslims grab the levers of power in Britain (and it's not impossible) that they'd show any tolerance at all towards--say--Hindus or Catholics?
For the millions of us living elsewhere who have British ancestry England remains an idea, a fixed point and an ideal, embodying the values of tolerance, democracy and civilised behaviour.
Oh, it's easy for "sophisticated" people to punch holes in that statement, to ridicule and deride the whole concept of "Englishness" and what it still means to us exiles and pilgrims and sons and daughters of emigrants--easy to settle for the benefits of remaining supine in the face of barbarians and their political enablers. The mortgage payments, after all, have to take precedence over principles.
Perhaps we can see things more clearly from a distance or maybe we just don't "get it" as those who still live in England do, but there seems to me to be a bitter irony in the fact that maybe--maybe--soccer thugs and hooligans may be the ones to do the work that the British voter should have done years ago.

Rob:
Like most people here I am a believer in the virtue of freedom. I also condemn Islamists. This may seem like a contradiction, and in a way it is, but the way that I reconcile theses views is simple. I understand that actions have consequences.

Where the Islamists ever to fully implement there policy it would destroy many freedoms for everyone, for ever. The Sharia that they want to impose may have been quite liberal in the sixth century but in the context of modern life it is extremely constraining and destroys many freedoms that we now take for granted. In their view Sharia is law given by 'god', it over rules all human made laws and can never be revised as no human has the right to over rule 'god'. So by opposing the Islamists, and other freedom hating political creeds, I may not be maximising freedom at this instant but I am trying to maximise it across the whole of the future.

Read and weep

Keith writes:

Rob, I agree with you about the right to observe one's own religous ideals, but can you point out one country where Islam is the dominant religion where that applies?

Turkey?

chris writes:

Like most people here I am a believer in the virtue of freedom. I also condemn Islamists. This may seem like a contradiction, and in a way it is, but the way that I reconcile theses views is simple. I understand that actions have consequences.

My point of view is not that far from yours. I don't think we disagree in our analysis of the present scenario, or the ends which we regard as desirable. I do suspect that we disagree on the means of dealing with it.

I disagree with Islam and would not like to live in a society run on purely Islamic principles. Nor would I like to live in a society run on fundamentalist Christian principles. The same applies to any other religion.

However, I cannot disagree with the rights of others to believe in Islam. I do think that they need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that their right to follow their religion ends at the point where it imposes upon my liberty. At present, it does not do so and, for all of the apocalyptic premonitions of various people, I don't think it necessarily will. Perhaps that is the crux of our disagreement.

I think the best way to avoid this scenario is to re-affirm our own beliefs, to re-awaken the sense of national culture within Britain (and England especially). Social change is an essentially Darwinist process, where stronger social modes displace weaker ones. If we wish to survive and preserve our culture, we need to take it much more seriously and think more carefully about how we do so.

To become isolationist, to turn on and exclude our fellow citizens would be an admission of weakness, akin to economic protectionism. Our values will only die when we cease to be worthy of them; so long as we are so, no outside force will be able to eradicate them. As I said earlier, this viewpoint is slowly making inroads into "the establishment". The comments about the recent attitude of the BBC are signs of a further interesting development.

I personally think that those calling for isolationism are buying into the myth of the inevitable decline of Britain (Mark Steyn mentions this in his obituary of Jim Callaghan). This mindset has progressed to the point where it now believes that Britishness can only be preserved by sealing it off from the outside world. This is a profoundly timid and fearful notion, one that betrays a complete lack of faith in the values which, only a century ago, were proclaimed as leading the world. True, those values have taken a battering in that century, but we're not about to fix that retreating ever further.

I think the battle to defend our values has to be won by patient argument and example. It's no good to sit back and point the finger at someone else, we have to become stronger ourselves. We have to be prepared to persuade, educate and pressure our fellow citizens and our politicians. It's boring and unglamorous, but it has to be done. I am saddened by the fact that so many seem to have given up on the task altogether, especially those who have left the country only to complain of its decline from afar.

Turkey, eh. Just one.
Rob, I don't find much to argue with in your last comment. I would point out though, that some of us are the children of migrants and didn't leave the country as a matter of choice. Many of us do "complain of it's decline from afar", yes. Because there are emotional ties that still give us a sense of "connectedness" to England. Not living in Britain doesn't disqualify us from comment. (and criticism)

I think the best way to avoid this scenario is to re-affirm our own beliefs, to re-awaken the sense of national culture within Britain (and England especially). Social change is an essentially Darwinist process, where stronger social modes displace weaker ones. If we wish to survive and preserve our culture, we need to take it much more seriously and think more carefully about how we do so.

Ok Rob,
So I announce that I'm going to have a full-on event extolling the virtues of being 'English' at some time in the future and ask the BBC for some coverage of that event.

Think I'll get it? - maybe if I make sure that 'racist symbol', the cross of St George, is not to be shown at the event as it is deemed to be 'offensive' to people who still remember the crusades as a major upset. I'll probably have to make sure that all the major religions are represented as well, and no special preference should be shown to the vicar (you know, the guy that represents the Church of England).

It's totally ok to be proud of having a Pakistani background (even if you were born in Leeds), but associate yourself with England and you're racist before you open your mouth. Like it or not, John Major had a point when he asked what team people cheered for in a cricket match (in typical John Major style he ballsed up the delivery of what should have been obvious)

Is it any wonder that people are fed up with that kind of attitude.

You make good points, but the problem as I see it is that there is no delineation between Islam the religion (which should be protected, in the same way other religions are) and Islam the political process (establishment of the caliphate, establishment of Sharia law etc)

That the elites have missed out on the feelings of 'the ordinary people' is not a surprise - they always do.

Rob,your dhimmi point of view will gladden the hearts of (S)iqbal Sophistry and his vile band of aggressors in Muslim councils and Muslim parliaments and every other weird little self-promoting pressure group they've thought up.

The Muslims have been in Britain for 50 years. How long do they need "educating", persuading and pressuring to get the point? I for one am not prepared to persuade, educate and pressure. They know the score and they use people like you to promulgate it for them.

They keep on attacking - and it will worsen - because we have accepted it in our sophisticated, "caring" (we really must educate these poor natives up to our values; it's such a bore being blown up all the time) way. They don't give a crap. Their religion, which is a psychopath's dream, is total control of the universe and the imposition of their god and his Stone Age values on the entire planet. Sharia law. They are serious about this, Rob, and you are a stooge if you think they are open to suasion.

But what is interesting is, you are open to suasion, and I mean no offence by noting this. You are trying to be open minded, but I do not believe in being open minded to great wrong and evil. I guard the gate to my own mind. They win the battle with the potential dhimmis inch by inch, but they don't get past my gate.

You say you wouldn't like to live in a society governed by fundmentalist Christian principles, either. Well, neither would I. But that's not the choice on offer. The choice is a vibrant, vivid secular society where choice is accepted as unexceptional right, or living among people who hack the heads off other living and conscious human beings because their god demands they "smite the heads" from the enemy (us). And video it for their later viewing pleasure. And people who kidnap the likes of Margaret Hassan, who did nothing but marry an Iraqi, speak fluent Iraqi, convert to Islam and help Iraqi orphans for 30 years - and disembowel her. (They really, really don't like women.)

Keith wrote: "maybe--maybe--soccer thugs and hooligans may be the ones to do the work that the British voter should have done years ago." I agree with you, Keith. These are today's version of the Yeomen of England. They're the same stock who have flung themselves into battle for a couple of thousand years, spoiling for a good fight. Wasn't it the Duke of Wellington who, looking at his troops, said he hoped they would frighten the enemy "because, by God, they scare the hell out of me!" He was referring, of course, to their appalling manners, their coarse behaviour and their hunger for a good fight. Hmmm ...

Tony writes:

So I announce that I'm going to have a full-on event extolling the virtues of being 'English' at some time in the future and ask the BBC for some coverage of that event.

Think I'll get it? - maybe if I make sure that 'racist symbol', the cross of St George, is not to be shown at the event as it is deemed to be 'offensive' to people who still remember the crusades as a major upset. I'll probably have to make sure that all the major religions are represented as well, and no special preference should be shown to the vicar (you know, the guy that represents the Church of England).

I actually think you might get coverage for such an event, if it could be organised properly. The cross of St George is not a racist symbol, though it is a symbol used by racists. The only way to change perceptions is to use the flag without being racist. The current situation exists partly because people have allowed their symbols to be stolen by those who want to abuse them (I don't think I need to point out the other prominent example of this process occurring).

A true celebration of Englishness would include a celebration of the liberty and tolerance which we have made a central part of our values. This doesn't mean wishy-washy multi-culturalism, but it's up to us to explain what it does mean, in a peaceful and patient way. We need to stop being scared of our own culture. We cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by the acts that extremists like the BNP carry out in our name.

At the risk of going off on a tangent about the BBC, I am not convinced that they, as an organisation, are necessarily in opposition to this idea. The BBC itself is a British institution, one that, should multiculturalism lead to a fragmented society, would lose much of the reason for its existence. It's actually in its interests to preserve and promote the idea of a shared identity, because it's the only way it can survive. It's not a monopoly broadcaster any more; if people want to watch Al-Jazeera instead of BBC News, they have that choice. Somewhat belatedly, the BBC might just be cottoning on to that particular fact.

"But the victims of that violence would learn a great deal from an honest reflection of what role they may have played in driving these patriotic campaigners to such desperate measures."

Presumably if we use your logic as a guide, then, the 'victims of the violence' of 7/7 might also 'learn a great deal ' if they considered 'what role they may have played in driving these patriotic campaigners to such desperate measures.' Yes?

"This doesn't mean wishy-washy multi-culturalism, but it's up to us to explain what it does mean, in a peaceful and patient way. We need to stop being scared of our own culture. We cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by the acts that extremists like the BNP carry out in our name."
We've explained what it means in a peaceful. patient way for many years. Over and over again. Don't you get it? They're NOT interested. The very essence of Islam is domination, to bring the whole world under Islamic rule. If people don't understand what they're being told by Islam itself by now, then they're either wilfully blind and deaf or just plain stupid.
As for the BNP being extremists--I don't recall them bombing, beheading and gutting innocent men, women and children. Compared to what they're opposing they look like a model of restraint. Perhaps we need some real extremists to get the point across that the West will be pushed just so far and no further.
After all, the squeamish could always claim "not in our name", eh?

and PS, Rob - yes I left Britain and now comment from afar because it was so very, very apparent what was going to happen under Tony Blair's Third Reich. The British were going to be demoted in their own country and Islamofascism, or any other kind of fascism would be promoted, as the socialists have always allied themselves with fascist causes bent on the destruction of civil society.

It was glaringly obvious and I knew that the British people would be passive and tut-tut and allow the Blair Reich and the BBC to run their thoughts into the foreseeable future.

I have a feeling, as I have posted before, that perhaps we are now at the end of the foreseeable future and the British are now, thanks to four Yorkshire fuckwits, a manipulator from S Carolina and a bunch of other manipulators in the background who went a step too far. Or maybe it was just too soon. They should have waited another couple of years, perhaps.

Tony Blair is now making oinking noises of protest, but it's temporary. The Islamofascist programme dovetails nicely with the communist programme and trust me, whether it is ever reported or not - and it won't be - Iqbal Sacrilege will have been invited to Downing St for "talks" on how this "crisis" can be "resolved". In other words, Siqbal will now have been promoted to unofficial government advisor.

Without Islam there is no crisis. It is Islam that is the problem worldwide.

Verity, I frankly think you underestimate me if you think I am willing to be a "dhimmi", as you describe me. I would gladly use whatever means are at my disposal to resist such oppression. As an English citizen I have rights which stem from centuries of history and I have no intention of being part of the generation that loses those rights. That you so willingly assume the weakness of the spirit of an Englishman is another example of the "inevitable decline" fallacy I mentioned earlier. We simply are made of sterner stuff than the doom-mongers would believe.

I see no contradiction in being proud of being English and being tolerant of those who are proud of their own cultural heritage. To expect them to behave otherwise would be a denial of basic human nature.

Let me be clear: I believe that English identity is not necessarily the same as British identity. English identity is far older; British identity is essentially a modern creation and is, by and large, a product of the empire. British identity has always had to cope with cultural differences within it and I see no reason why those of Pakistani descent cannot integrate their identity with Britishness, as those of, say, Jamaican descent appear able to.

Yes, this means disavowing violence and oppression, because these things are incompatible with Britishness. Plenty of immigrant communities have already done this.

Also, I am really starting to wonder what you would have us do. Your last post reveals an admiration for football hooligans, with your "hmm...." sounding very much like an implicit suggestion that perhaps we should just bus a load of hooligans around Leeds, kicking the crap out of anyone who can't recite every verse of "God Save the Queen" on the spot. If that's your version of Englishness, perhaps its decline would not be such a bad thing after all.

Such violence ultimately stems from fear, weakness and suspicion - is this the English character? I think not. We are not a nation of small-minded bigots.

I think we are fighting the wrong battle here. Englishness is not made greater by diminishing other cultures. We do not become stronger by isolating ourselves, keeping ourselves locked away on our island. We become stronger by affirming our culture, by celebrating it and by working together, as free people, to build a better future. Such we have done for centuries and I fail to see any evidence that the stalling and reversal of this process in the last 50 years can be blamed on "the Muslims". No, I think our true battle lies elsewhere. We would have little reason to be so fearful and reactionary if we had not seen our rights eroded and our freedoms curtailed. But by giving in to the idea that our identity is doomed and can only be protected by violence and coercion, we only accelerate its demise.

It is people like Rob who have gotten us into this mess to begin with. Their beliefs in unfettered immigration, multiculturalism and enhanced rights for minorities have trumped the British peoples inherent right to liberty and a secure homeland. Rob and his fellow ideologues are too self-righteous and conceited to change their minds even though their Frankenculture is beginning to unravel. He would like to convince us that all we have to do is tweak the dials and twist the controls a little (in ways that he approves of) and all will be put right.

As I said earlier, the left must be confronted and their input into our society greatly diminished before we can begin to deal with any security problems seriously.

Rob - this will be the last post in which I will speak directly to you, because you have not changed my impression that you are a dhimmi. The Islamics keep taking another inch - have you not noticed that? Special school uniforms. Times out for prayer, because, you see, they are so righteous. Slicing the clitoris off 11 year old girls is OK because "it's part of our culture". Covering women's faces is "part of our culture". Honour killings - not that we participate, of course, "are part of our culture". Bringing brides who are illiterate even in their own language into Britain is "part of our culture". Even the Muslim girls born in Britain are too threatening for the weak Islamic male. When their foul "sharia" law comes to Britain - "but only for Muslims; we are not forcing it on any one else" demands burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her to death for adultery, it will be "part of our culture". You think it won't happen? It's already happened twice in France. Think about it. But it's part of their culture. Not French culture. Stone Age culture. So are suicide jihadis.

Which of the above events has not already happened in deeply civilised Britain? Only stoning. Everything else has been woven in to British society by Stone Age primitives.

If that is not how they wish to be regarded, I suggest they straighten up and get rid of their filthy habits.

I wasn't being subtle when I implied that I thought the local Islamic lads, lords of Britain and able to dictate terms to No 10, should have the shit thrashed out of them by our English lads. Everyone beats a weak dog, you know, and Blair has positioned the English as the weakest dog in the pack. Time for the Blair Reich to begin its fast demise.

I cannot believe he and Cherie thought they'd get away with it. Blair's on the run.

The time for interfaith working groups, cross-cultural consultative committees, meetings and consultation with local community leaders, culturally sensitive policing and all the rest of the multi-culti feelgood gravy-trains is over. Along with all the corruption and enormous costs that go with them. People with an interest in keeping the whole rotten, corrupt edifice intact may not realise it yet, but the peasants have had enough.
All you've done so far Rob is recycle the platitudes and Superior Wisdom that got the West into this mess.
There IS such a thing as time to fight and if we wait until "reasonable" and "sensitive" people also decide the time has come, then it will be too damn late.

Dwight writes:

It is people like Rob who have gotten us into this mess to begin with. Their beliefs in unfettered immigration, multiculturalism and enhanced rights for minorities have trumped the British peoples inherent right to liberty and a secure homeland. Rob and his fellow ideologues are too self-righteous and conceited to change their minds even though their Frankenculture is beginning to unravel.

Following that post, I am tempted to be flippant and say that the problem appears to be the education system, as it clearly isn't teaching people to read.

Where did I support unfettered immigration? The discussion is all about existing immigrant-descendent populations and my posts were based on the premise that, as British citizens born in this country, they are entitled to the same rights as any other British citizen. As a matter of fact, I agree that large-scale immigration is a bad thing, particularly when it simply transplants cultures and communities from one country to another.

I wrote:

No, I think our true battle lies elsewhere. We would have little reason to be so fearful and reactionary if we had not seen our rights eroded and our freedoms curtailed

Dwight wrote:

As I said earlier, the left must be confronted and their input into our society greatly diminished before we can begin to deal with any security problems seriously.

As you should be able to see, I entirely agree. I simply regard the current fixation with immigrants to be a diversion from the true battle that libertarians should be engaging in.

Verity, I agree with the problems you identify, but I think you are being utterly misguided in how you approach it.

Let me engage in a little analogy. I'd say that our current situation may be compared with Germany in the 1930s. I presume you see some parallels there too. There's trouble on the horizon, but how do we prevent it?

As anyone who read The Road to Serfdom can tell you, Hitler was only able to do so much damage because the power of the state was blindly built up by his predecessors. They never anticipated his rise, never thought that their well-intentioned utopian projects could be turned to the purpose of mass murder. Just as now, New Labour does not suspect that its utopian multi-culturalism and ever rising state intervention could be turned to evil purposes. But this is exactly what may be happening - in particular, ASBOs seem almost tailor-made for forcing people to observe "society's" wishes. Such a tool, in the hands of religious fundamentalists, would do untold harm. But our enemy here is not the extremists, the enemy is the maker of the tools. Without the tools to oppress others, the extremists are marginal and powerless, as extremists in British society have always been.

When you rail against Muslims, you are simply missing the point. Oppression can only truly be performed by the state. It is the state that represents the threat to freedom, not any single group who may wish to abuse its power. It is the buildup of state power and the necessary loss of liberty that this implies which must be fought, not the designs of any particular group to make use of these powers in specific ways. There's really no point in arguing about who gets to oppress who, the real argument should be about how to avoid oppression altogether.

One problem is that we live in an awkward trap in Britain where we need to avoid being racist, while people are ironically being afraid of being racist at the same time.

Take laws against preaching hate/racism etc. While these are freely applied against groups such as the BNP and football hooligans, the same should certainly apply for those islamic clerics/groups who have not from my point of view been prosecuted as harshly as of yet. People should be allowed to believe whatever they like in Britain, as long as they adhere to the law that applies to everyone.

This is the same when we consider 'Englishness'. Unless you are at a sporting event, things such as flags etc are often said of as being expressions of the far right, when infact it should be perfectly ok to be proud to be English, as long as it is done in a respectful, orderly and most importantly lawful manner.

Britain's great characteristics are its tolerance and the love of being a liberal society. We must persist in this point of view, because that is what Britain is, has been and hopefully always will be. We must be a shining example, as to be honest anything otherwise is simply doing what terrorists want by causing bad blood between us and islamic people. By showing that we are a productive, happy, tolerant, welcoming society is the most persuasive argument we can possibly present.

There is a problem with integration, but to suggest that to be islamic and english in society is not possible is quite frankly, rediculous. Take Amir Khan and his family, they are more than proud to be British and to represent this country. These are people who work hard and who are certainly more benefit to Britain than the hordes of natives who simply wish to sponge off the state.

And now, chaps, the Royal Shakespeare Company has commissioned a production of Richard III as .... Saddam Hussein!!

"The new production, featuring a pan-Arab cast, will be directed by Sulayman al-Bassam, the Anglo-Kuwaiti director.

Mr al-Bassam is convinced that the play is an ideal vehicle for an exploration of Saddam's brutal reign of terror. He is, however, considering a drastic reworking of the plot.

"The RSC have given me a significant amount of freedom about how I might approach the play," he said."

How precious! Mr al-Bassam, who is clearly brain dead, thinks Richard is an excellent vehicle for exploring the brutalitiy of Saddam. Doubtless rape rooms and two highly insane sons will be written into the plot. Mr al-Bassam, who is using a "pan Arab cast", whatever the hell that means - has been "given freedom about how he might approach the play". So overlaying an Arab Stone Age primitive god on a king of England sounds like, so interesting for the truly ignorant with a chip on their shoulder.

Okay, boys and girls, who thinks this will be box office magic and who thinks the punters will stay away in droves? Never mind. The RSC's one of those state-funded tit-suckers, so no money probs.

It might be worth applying some logic to this.If, after decades of reasoning,preferential legislation and a policy of avoidance of offence, someone still feels it legitimate to slaughter us by the dozens perhap new form of dialogue should be adopted.
Obviously those who hate us are not amenable, but those other sweetly reasoned people might respond to a firmer form of persuasion.
Perhaps if Blair were subject to riots like the Poll Tax riots he might see the error of his ways,after all there are a lot of us.

Rob - do not take my silence for acquiescence. I said I wouldn't be responding to you any more because your reasoning is so imbued with multiculti truisms that have been proven destructive so often that arguing with you is pointless. Let others do the heavy lifting.

Rob: your argument seems to be close to the pervasive, liberal 'This isn't working, we must do more of it!' kind.

Can you show us some evidence that the softly-softly approach isn't precisely what has got us into this mess?

Peter - I don't think so. Blair and his wife are commies dedicated to the destruction of the nation state of Briton. Cherie cannot even, as the prime minister's wife, force herself to bend her fat knee to the Queen, our head of state. Not even at the funeral of the Queen's mother.

They have hit a major pothole in the road to transeuropeanism. Four little shits - and may they roast in hell - got a bit ahead of the game and - uh - got in the way of the programme. Tony has done some quick back-and-filling, but this time it's not enough. These bombers, immensely more intelligent as exploded corpses than they were when alive and ambulatory, have caused a major glitch in the programme and Tone isn't half having a job pretending to feel outraged.

The BBC's bucking 'n' winging it, too.

"Get me Peter, in Brussels!!" This wasn't in the fucking plan, goddammit! Now the whole thing's coming unravelled unless Tony, with the power of his charming personality and his secret decoder ring, can get the force back with the cabinet!!!

I don't think it's going to happen. The columnists have deserted him in droves. I think if the Brits keep up the pressure, keep sniping and don't allow him to regain his footing, his project is blown.

Which multi-culti truisms are these?

Seriously, I have stated my opposition to mass immigration. I have stated my opposition to special state privileges for minorities. I have stated my strong belief in English national culture. By what logic is this "multiculturalism"?

I said that we should be tolerant of the different strands of culture within a broader British culture, into which immigrants should integrate - such integration implying a renunciation of those values which are antithetical to British culture. I can draw you a Venn diagram showing how this works if it would help. At no point did I say that British culture should be expanded to pander to the prejudices of anyone who can get a visa. I think there are very clear limits on what British culture can accomodate with becoming contradictory. Those incapable of reconciling their personal beliefs with British culture should not be allowed to behave however they like under the protection of religious tolerance.

Verity,
A few anti-terrorist riots might just prove the emetic that Tony needs,it is going to ge hard for Mrs Tony to claim that she can understand why suicide bombers do it,as she once did of the Palestinians.

As to our concern about immigration,I'm sure ther is no commonlink

Sorry to be so prevalent on this post just now, but I am up and most of you aren't. I see in Sunday's Telegraph, which I see while you're still sleeping, Bliar gave "a robust speech" (well, of course, he did) saying that "Defeating terrorism", means arguing against "the terrorists' politics and their perversion of religious faith".

Well, there we have it. Tony Blair is trying to persuade the British that the terrorists are enacting a perverted form of Islam. They're not. That is the true Islam. Conquest by the sword, the bomb, beheading, whatever. And Tony knows it. And he is lying again.

Suicide bombing is "antithetical to British Culture" it is also antithetical to life and reason,but it is here with us.
It is blindingly odvious that those who are killing us are way beyond using reason,they don't want to reason with us they want us to obey!
As for a broader British culture,English culture has been destroyed in the name of multiculturalism and the Franken Reich.Check any euro map for Englan,it isn't there any more.If England can be disposed of in a few decades the artificial construct of Britain should be easy to erase.

Verity,
If you read this you will never get to sleep
It the dogs home,they always destroy the friendly trusting dogs first,why? Because they can.

Peter, what an excellent, lucid post!

You said all. They want us to obey. Not discuss. Not make a few concessions every couple of years. Obey. And Blair and his cohorts have encouraged them in this belief, which makes Blair as culpable as if he set off the bombs himself. He afforded them the civil climate in which to do it.

I don't agree that English culture has been destroyed, although I agree that English nationhood has been destroyed. Blair managed to deconstruct Britain in one foul swoop, but it's only skin deep. We'll get it back if we talk back vigourously enough: "We know what you're about, Sunshine, and we won't be having it."

So if I understand some of the comments on here we as White British (as appears on various forms) have two choices.
1) Bash a Paki, coz Paki Bashins' back in Fashion ?
2) Engage more fully with the Islamic community and hope for a reformation in their religion which will allow them to reconcile the polar opposites inherent in a liberal, secular society with the laws as laid down by God through the prophet Mohammed and canonised in the Koran ?

Please shout at me if I have misinterpreted the previous 60 posts, and come to the two above responses to the atrocity that occurred in London.

Is there any room for a third way ?
Here Is what I would like to see, strict application of the law, as it stands, no need for new ones.

If Mr Mullah from Pakistan incites violence, lock him up and then deport him.

If Mr BNP incites violence lock him up and when he is released make sure he knows he is being watched.

Use the Law. That is what makes us British, our upholding of the law of the land, if anyone breaks the law let them suffer the consequences.

Later

Gengee

Gengee,
Using the law equally has already been advocated here,the problem is that that is not what Blairism is about.Blairism means a whole new European identity,it is obvious that Islam does not want this any more than the rest of us.
The ones who need bashing are the idiot liberal left who are imposing their concept of nationality on all of us,whether White, Black,Brown ,Christian,Muslim,Hindu,Jew or whatever,the law is used for social engineering,one has only to lookat the sad people in charge of London's police,the law is to usher us all into conformity,whilst still wearing our national costume and singing our folk songs for the visiting Commissars.
The law will not be applied evenly,because Blair does not want it to be.

What you say is true Peter, I will not dispute the fact that our Laws are not enforced or applied evenly.

I will also agree that some of our Laws are used as tools for social engineering.

I don't actually disagree with anything in your post.

I still think that the Law is our best bet, 'the Govenment' will eventually fall in line with the will of the people, if it does not it gets voted out, eventually :-).

Later

Gengee

Gengee,
Some of the people are blowing themselves up to bet the government to fall in with their will,what are the rest of to do?
The words of Peace

Passes Verity a glass of good colonial wine..good work and good on yer. :o)

Peter,