Forum Topic

Immigration laws are one thing and a few months ago I commented on how the law should be changed. Some of my views on the law would make even TP’s opinions on the subject pale into insignificance. But the approach to settled immigrants is quite another.I have always been suspicious about active promotion of multiculturism because in part it denies some of the history of this country which has been about integration.  For me integration is about a gradual coming together and an assimilation of peoples’ different ideas and culture – but it usually takes a number of generations (depending on their own history) for that to be achieved. The key ingredient that goes with integration is a respect for other people’s cultures/beliefs etc and where parts of those customs are attractive, an acquisition perhaps of some of those elements. If respect is offered, as it should be, then the new entrants should as a rule start to find the established way of life here more acceptable and attractive and which they in part then start to adopt.Multiculturism is hard to understand but for me it seems that it is supposed to be promoting celebration of another’s culture. What I cannot see in this is a policy which says the celebration then needs to move into the next phase, i.e. integration.  It seems to say - there is a culture. It is self contained and self sustaining, go and look at it and go and celebrate it. To me that sounds like an obstruction to integration and an encouragement for continuing separation. One of the problems with continuing separation is that the minorities are not the only groups which remain apart (both from each other and from the host majority). The host majorities are also hindered from taking in the new settlers, because the minorities are not advised that integration is expected of them. And if it is suggested that they should integrate, their educated leaders then say, well the government policy of the UK is promotion of multiculturism. If you accept the gist of this, it easy to see how the host can become angry with the new settlers. It is easy to see how the settlers will huddle together in fear of the anger and shrink from any thought of integration.In my view the government should excise the multiculturism word from any policy documents. All parties realise this and it is time for action. The minorities need protection from the host majority extremists which is why we must have strict laws against those who covertly incite hatred against minorities. If, in exchange for the introduction of integration as government policy the minorities want more protection from being marginalised then the law must be tightened even further.  It won’t be lost on most that if some minority selects another group for victimisation then the law will also deal with them with equal harshness. But where a person marginalises another and then claims he is being attacked because he has marginalised someone then he would proactively have to demonstrate a very clean record to avoid falling into the trap of dissimulation.People who trample underfoot the minorities have IMO a very low moral standard. They lose their right to respect and they set an example for disrespect from other groups. They should be challenged continually, because it is a disgrace to the decent minded majority of Englishmen that we have in our midst a few Englishmen with such base and abusive and disrespectful values.

George Knox ● 4876d

Re  robbed them of a much-loved grandmother.          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      I don't know about others but my belief most  grandchildren are very fond of their grandparents in particular. I was part brought up by one g/mother as my parents house had been bombed to bits and they had moved into my g/mother's house. So three generations lived together and  " nanny "  used to spend much time with me and my cousin next door. She naturally  came to be special to us especially me,so if some  ba....rd murdered her not only would I have been devastated but probably would never have gotten over it. My employer moved me to London and my  first boss there was a typical English gentleman, as I was staying at Loughton at the time and he  lived at Buckhurst Hill,his family invited me to dinner one evening. Their children were invited as well, so I met them all,including obviously the wife, again a lovely unassuming soul. He eventually reired but was swept up by Lloyds because of his reputation and experience. I heard  years later he had passed over with cancer. His house in Buckhurst Hill was very large with huge gardens.  A few years ago I saw the headlines and  a woman's face on the front page of a national paper.I instantly recognised the person,it was the wife who had apparently sold the B/Hill property and moved into a more manageable  house into which a person had broken in, raped her and then murdered her. She was well into her eighties by then. I cannot get my mind how someone  could do either of those things to her let alone both. Unbelievable,what a ghastly way to end her days on this earth and enter the next. I don't suppose  the children,or grandchilren have EVER got over it, or ever will.

Tony Price ● 4878d