|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 3, 2014 14:49:51 GMT
Nobody was 'brought' to this country to do 'subservient' jobs Salop. Immigrants came of their own free will for a better life and worked alongside their white colleagues. They immediately got access to all the state services and benefits that the British had. They were treated as equals by the state. Many people resented the fact and there was racial tension. The Race Relations Act you referred to actually increased tensions because of the perceived inequality towards the whites........ which is where Enoch Powell famously stepped in! We aren't paying the price for that now.... we did that in the 80's. What we are paying the price of now, is Tony Fucking Blair. they couldnt work alongside their white collegues without being called blackie, they couldnt turn on the tv without seeing the likes of alf garnet when i say subservient, probably th ewrong word but it was manual and shit jobs as opposed to being captains on industry in the main. yes they came of their own free will but we asked them to come and as a nation didnt do as much as what we should have done for full integration and equality Equal rights were assured as soon as they set foot here as far as the state was concerned. I can't see what else we could have done more mate. . Apart from jailing all potential racists (probably the great majority of the population by todays standards!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 16:24:28 GMT
1.in terms of actual immigration and ethnic communities coming into the country from abroad in large numbers then that was basically when it began due to the slave trade. that was then the ethnic communities were rounded up together and treated as second class citizens which is what salop pointed out in his post. 2.even if you want to just look at the 20th Century, it's certainly not true at all to say that all immigrants came over voluntarily...thousands were "Labour Recruited" from the commonwealth in the 40's (British Honduras, West Indies etc.) for tree felling, munition factories, merchant navy etc. etc. whilst others did come voluntarily. 3.after the war the government actually tried to convince most to return home (and were offered incentives by the government to do so) but few opted to take that up and the Labour government actually used european workers and german prisoners for the rebuilding of Britain rather than "Recruit" any more immigrants to help out with rebuilding as it was thought that european workers would be more likely to return home after work was completed. 4.it's also not true to say they had equal rights..it wasn't until the mid-60s that banning black people from pubs, busses or indeed any business premises or transport method came into force. up until then you could refuse entry/trade/transport to blacks or anyone of any ethnic minority. 1. Not sure about this mate.... any links? 2. Are you saying that these people were forced to come over? 3. Why would these people NOT return home if they felt so badly treated? 4. They were treated as equals by the state and under the law. Anybody offering a service at that time could refuse on any grounds - unmarried, Irish background, single mother, disabled, bad family, born out of wedlock, not Christened, didn't like the look of you etc. People were a lot more opinionated than they are now. Immigrants were not the only ones discriminated against, it was a fact of life for many. Have to agree with the Count here Mick. You're making some very odd sounding points there old chap.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Jun 3, 2014 19:41:55 GMT
Agreed. But I think some of the immigrant communities are much more inclined to be isolationist. That's where we get mistrust and friction. The wider spread introduction of faith only schools doesn't help but reinforce the isolation. It's not about racist - it's about integration and tolerance IMHO. you would be isolationist too if you or your previous generations were brought to this country to do subservient jobs, housed together in communities, and the laws of the land did very little to protect you from abuse, racism, and discrimination. they should have been brough over as equals from the start chicken and egg - it took 20 years after ww2 to bring in this legislation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1965 which still was very weak yes the law has improved significantly but was really too late and we are paying the price now That is a pretty naive view of things. I am not saying you are wrong but it is a simplistic viewpoint to think that immigrants should be treated as equals. I dont know of one country in the world in the last 500 years where the indigenous population has fully embraced immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 3, 2014 19:57:21 GMT
you would be isolationist too if you or your previous generations were brought to this country to do subservient jobs, housed together in communities, and the laws of the land did very little to protect you from abuse, racism, and discrimination. they should have been brough over as equals from the start chicken and egg - it took 20 years after ww2 to bring in this legislation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1965 which still was very weak yes the law has improved significantly but was really too late and we are paying the price now That is a pretty naive view of things. I am not saying you are wrong but it is a simplistic viewpoint to think that immigrants should be treated as equals. I dont know of one country in the world in the last 500 years where the indigenous population has fully embraced immigrants. Usually the immigrants have been British, French, Spanish and taken over that country I mean equal in how you treat them, this is a different world to last 500 years, slave trade is abolished Equal rights in the 50s and the changing of our instutionally racist police army etc etc at the time and we wouldn't have half the problems we have now
|
|
|
Post by matelot1996 on Jun 3, 2014 20:20:05 GMT
the problem with immigration is there has been no integration - and the integration should come from all sides You can't integrate a fox into a Chicken house. Some Muslims have no intention of integrating. They have been fighting for hundreds of years across all continents with various factions and some of them have come here with the sole intention of grabbing all that's good whilst fu##ing us over and teaching us how to better people.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 3, 2014 20:30:08 GMT
the problem with immigration is there has been no integration - and the integration should come from all sides You can't integrate a fox into a Chicken house. Some Muslims have no intention of integrating. They have been fighting for hundreds of years across all continents with various factions and some of them have come here with the sole intention of grabbing all that's good whilst fu##ing us over and teaching us how to better people. that is a result of foreign policy since 2000. Since the mass commonwealth immigration of post ww2 not enough was done
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Jun 3, 2014 20:47:48 GMT
Good
Lets ban dogs from public spaces I fucking hate them...shitting all over the place where there are children. And people scoop up the shit & put it in a bag as though that solves anything.Theres still dog faeces smeared all over the grass.
And we are the only country in Western Europe that gives more money to animal welfare than children's charities.
Cuz we love our little doggies don't we.
|
|
|
Post by dobing1863 on Jun 3, 2014 21:53:26 GMT
Good Lets ban dogs from public spaces I fucking hate them...shitting all over the place where there are children. And people scoop up the shit & put it in a bag as though that solves anything.Theres still dog faeces smeared all over the grass. And we are the only country in Western Europe that gives more money to animal welfare than children's charities. Cuz we love our little doggies don't we. My dog is trained to crap in my garden where I clean it up,dogs aren't the problem it's the knobheads that own them.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jun 3, 2014 22:44:28 GMT
How is putting a sign up a ”ban”?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 5:38:36 GMT
Little scamps aren't they them muzmentalists
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 4, 2014 7:31:00 GMT
Little scamps aren't they them muzmentalists I presume you'd be all in favour if it said German Shepherds and Irish Wolfhounds though mate, bloody foreign dogs come over here clog up the vets and take owners from british dogs (winky thingy)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 9:43:10 GMT
1. Not sure about this mate.... any links? 2. Are you saying that these people were forced to come over? 3. Why would these people NOT return home if they felt so badly treated? 4. They were treated as equals by the state and under the law. Anybody offering a service at that time could refuse on any grounds - unmarried, Irish background, single mother, disabled, bad family, born out of wedlock, not Christened, didn't like the look of you etc. People were a lot more opinionated than they are now. Immigrants were not the only ones discriminated against, it was a fact of life for many. Have to agree with the Count here Mick. You're making some very odd sounding points there old chap. how odd **************? they're fact mate, you can read about them in any history textbook
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 9:44:34 GMT
fuckin hell...you can spot the Daily Mail readers on this thread a mile off!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 9:46:21 GMT
Have to agree with the Count here Mick. You're making some very odd sounding points there old chap. how odd **************? they're fact mate, you can read about them in any history textbook Not the one you have on your shelf from 1971 mate
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 10:49:01 GMT
Have to agree with the Count here Mick. You're making some very odd sounding points there old chap. how odd **************? they're fact mate, you can read about them in any history textbook I've had a look on the tinterweb Mick and can't find any references to these facts. I assume you missed my request above for any links? Ta in advance :-)
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 4, 2014 11:06:10 GMT
you want links? good article here www.historytoday.com/zig-henry/new-commonwealth-migrants-1945-62The response to colonial migration to Britain by politicians and policymakers in the 1950s was hesitant and ambiguous, and little positive was done to assist their settlement, integration and acceptance. In contrast to the later migration of southern Europeans and Third World people to the continental countries, it was not welcomed as a response to manpower needs and a valuable asset in creating economic growth and sustaining higher living standards and prosperity. British policy-makers only tolerated it and would have liked to discourage it. They were aware from the beginning of the social and political costs of immigration, especially of the problems of racial prejudice that migrants would face and which might prevent the integration of black workers. The inter-departmental working party set up in 1947 had expressed concern at the possibility of an 'inassimilable minority' being created by migration and this is why it concluded that controls were the only practical solution. What is surprising is that the Labour Cabinet did not believe that this prejudice could be overcome by a positive programme of public education, legislation or administrative action. However, the major factor leading to the introduction of immigration controls in 1962 was the popular hostility to coloured immigration which manifested itself in a political campaign for control, in racial discrimination and occasional outbursts of violence. By far the worst incidents of violence were the riots in Notting Hill and Nottingham in 1958. Given the private anxieties of policy-makers from the very beginning of New Commonwealth immigration, it could be argued that controls were introduced more reluctantly and less quickly than might have been anticipated if these anxieties had been more publicly known. On the other hand a more positive lead early in the period of migration to publicise the benefits of immigration and to aid settlement and integration might have done much to relieve public anxieties. This might have reduced the opportunities for the exploitation of immigration and race relations as political issues which was to take place in the 1970s. and as i said "little positive was done to assist their settlement, integration and acceptance" and "What is surprising is that the Labour Cabinet did not believe that this prejudice could be overcome by a positive programme of public education, legislation or administrative action." also to be noted is the fact that predjudice was reduced for those from the colonoies that had served in the war
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 11:35:25 GMT
how odd **************? they're fact mate, you can read about them in any history textbook I've had a look on the tinterweb Mick and can't find any references to these facts. I assume you missed my request above for any links? Ta in advance :-) not hard mate, just google "Immigrants Britain" or "Black immigrants Britain" there's literally scores of sites
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 11:53:46 GMT
Little scamps aren't they them muzmentalists I presume you'd be all in favour if it said German Shepherds and Irish Wolfhounds though mate, bloody foreign dogs come over here clog up the vets and take owners from british dogs (winky thingy) I think you're barking up the wrong tree I'm all for them if they wind mumf up
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 11:56:05 GMT
BAN THE BARKa
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Jun 4, 2014 12:50:53 GMT
I am TOTALLY NOT anti-Islamic.
I am TOTALLY, TOTALLY opposed to Islamic 'law' and culture being allowed to influence how we behave in any wider sense like this.
Besides it's only going to make non-Muslims even more hostile than they already are.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 12:51:48 GMT
Mick, Salop
Thanks for the link. I've read it and and I'm left asking the same questions as above! The author is basically saying that the indigenous population needed 'educating' as to the benefits of immigration. I'm sure that there were other pressing matters that took priority (and funding) in food rationed post war Britain. The immigrants were treated as equals by the state and pre-warned of possible adverse reactions from Britons before departure (according to the link). They still CHOSE to come and take SKILLED, SEMI SKILLED and manual jobs (according to the link). After reading the link I'm struggling to understand how you've come to your conclusions! :-)
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 4, 2014 12:57:21 GMT
Mick, Salop Thanks for the link. I've read it and and I'm left asking the same questions as above! The author is basically saying that the indigenous population needed 'educating' as to the benefits of immigration. I'm sure that there were other pressing matters that took priority (and funding) in food rationed post war Britain. The immigrants were treated as equals by the state and pre-warned of possible adverse reactions from Britons before departure (according to the link). They still CHOSE to come and take SKILLED, SEMI SKILLED and manual jobs (according to the link). After reading the link I'm struggling to understand how you've come to your conclusions! :-) he also said the govt did not did not believe that this prejudice could be overcome by a positive programme of public education, legislation or administrative action so did fuck all
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 4, 2014 13:12:11 GMT
I am TOTALLY NOT anti-Islamic. I am TOTALLY, TOTALLY opposed to Islamic 'law' and culture being allowed to influence how we behave in any wider sense like this. . You are TOTALLY, TOTALLY getting your knickers in a twist over nothing though, as Starkiller said when does putting a notice up make something a ban, if I posted that Islamists said that everyone who posted on the Oatie had to send me £25, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't start collecting cheques for me (although if I'm wrong I'll PM you my address ) Not sure if you are a dog owner or not but they are plenty of non-muslims who don't like dogs and they are also plenty of places we can't take our dog (hotels, restaurants, football grounds, concerts etc etc) that are legally enforced
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 13:19:12 GMT
I am TOTALLY NOT anti-Islamic. I am TOTALLY, TOTALLY opposed to Islamic 'law' and culture being allowed to influence how we behave in any wider sense like this. . You are TOTALLY, TOTALLY getting your knickers in a twist over nothing though, as Starkiller said when does putting a notice up make something a ban, if I posted that Islamists said that everyone who posted on the Oatie had to send me £25, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't start collecting cheques for me (although if I'm wrong I'll PM you my address ) Not sure if you are a dog owner or not but they are plenty of non-muslims who don't like dogs and they are also plenty of places we can't take our dog (hotels, restaurants, football grounds, concerts etc etc) that are legally enforced there's also nothing whatsoever to say it's a Muslim that even put it up! sounds more like the kind of poster some disgruntled white english person has put up after having an argument/disagreement with a Muslim to me. i don't think for a second that a Muslim would put that up expecting people to follow it's instructions. it's incredibly easy to court controversy and make a particular element of society look bad to encourage support against them, i suspect this is an example of that
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jun 4, 2014 13:21:24 GMT
Isn't there some onus on people coming to a foreign country to try to integrate with the existing communities? (This certainly applies to Brits going abroad too). I understand there have been problems in previous generations - but when are people allowed to move on? My questions remain. There must be an onus of people arriving in this country to try and adapt and integrate into the existing society? There have been integration problems caused by both the existing and arriving communities - but blaming people not wanting to integrate more on what happened a generation ago is just making excuses isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 13:31:26 GMT
Mick, Salop Thanks for the link. I've read it and and I'm left asking the same questions as above! The author is basically saying that the indigenous population needed 'educating' as to the benefits of immigration. I'm sure that there were other pressing matters that took priority (and funding) in food rationed post war Britain. The immigrants were treated as equals by the state and pre-warned of possible adverse reactions from Britons before departure (according to the link). They still CHOSE to come and take SKILLED, SEMI SKILLED and manual jobs (according to the link). After reading the link I'm struggling to understand how you've come to your conclusions! :-) he also said the govt did not did not believe that this prejudice could be overcome by a positive programme of public education, legislation or administrative action so did fuck all Did you miss the bits about the pre-warning and other pressing matters?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 13:36:14 GMT
Isn't there some onus on people coming to a foreign country to try to integrate with the existing communities? (This certainly applies to Brits going abroad too). I understand there have been problems in previous generations - but when are people allowed to move on? My questions remain. There must be an onus of people arriving in this country to try and adapt and integrate into the existing society? There have been integration problems caused by both the existing and arriving communities - but blaming people not wanting to integrate more on what happened a generation ago is just making excuses isn't it? the onus is on both sides if you ask me. yes, they have chosen to come here but a hell of a lot of them aid our economy and help services where there is a lack of British applicants (particualrly in the NHS) so we have to do our bit too. you have to remember though that most people who come over are intially housed by local authorities. they don't get to pick and choose where they live and they tend to be housed in areas where the community is largely an immigrant one anyway. it's hard to integrate when you're basically dumped amongst other immigrants in the first place and when there's a constant reminder in the media of how large sections of society don't want them coming in the first place (that may not be the way that people actually think or how parties like UKIP actually think but it's the way it's played out in the media). it can't be easy to come to another country and see posters on billboards telling us how Romanians are after OUR jobs and seeing tabloid articles talking about how our economy is crumbling under the weight of these immigrants and television is producing documentaries like "Illegal immigrant and proud" which will tar a lot of the immigrants with that same brush for a lot of the UK public out there......they're not exactly welcoming gestures really. there is a minority of immigrants that spoil it for everyone else with their fundamentalist ideas in the same way that there is a minority of the British public that don't want them here but until this is accurately portrayed in the media as both of those sides being a minority of the sub-sections rather than the general concensus then tensions will continue from both sides of the coin.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 4, 2014 13:36:15 GMT
1. theres another good article pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj68/brown.htmThe Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962) What fundamentally transformed this situation, as well as dramatically increasing the numbers of Commonwealth migrants who did attempt to reach Britain during the early 1960s, was the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill of 1962. In the period immediately before and after the Tories introduced the 1962 Act, the entry of dependants into Britain increased almost threefold as families were left with little choice but to attempt to 'beat the act', amidst widespread fears that Britain planned to permanently close its doors to its citizens in the New Commonwealth, including the families of those already living in Britain. Total New Commonwealth immigration thus grew from 21,550 entrants in 1959, to 58,300 in 1960. A year later this last figure had more than doubled and a record 125,400 New Commonwealth immigrants entered the UK in 1961.35 Thus the racism of Britain's Tory government led them to destroy in one single act the almost perfect symmetry which had previously existed between levels of migration into Britain and the level of demand for labour there. And if this were not irony enough, the Tory government then drew back at the last minute from restricting the right of family reunification to Commonwealth citizens under the terms of the 1962 Act and thereby scored not one but two own goals. Even so, the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill proved to be a landmark in a much more enduring sense, with far graver consequences for future migrant workers. It was the first legislation to introduce state regulation of Commonwealth immigration and introduced the first ever entry restrictions on British Commonwealth citizens, by making primary immigration dependent upon the possession of a work voucher. Given that the intended targets of the Act were all black or Asian (and few ever even attempted to deny this), the 1962 Act also marks the first of a series of racially discriminatory pieces of legislation which have combined to lay the basis for the notoriously racist immigration laws for which Britain is so famous today. The 1962 Act enshrined in law for the first time the completely false, yet no less insidious, notion that immigration equals black immigration, a notion upon which all successive immigration legislation has been built. In 1968, for instance, the Labour government introduced into law the nonsense of the 'New Commonwealth' which, translated, means 'black' and therefore 'unwelcome'. Not satisfied, in 1971 the Tories introduced into law the equally absurd notion of 'patriality' which, when translated, means 'white' and, by implication, 'welcome'. Overall the 1962 Act succeeded in making respectable, as well as enshrining in law, what was previously only claimed openly by isolated bigots like Enoch Powell or what was whispered in private in cabinet committees: that black immigration into Britain is a fundamentally bad thing, and that it should be prevented at all costs, except, of course, where the system would literally cease to function without it. 2. were they forced to come over? No but they were encouraged by the british, also they come from countries ravaged by colonialism and imperialism so were poor due to us, 3. why didnt they go back? see 1 above but also, they took it because they felt it was still better than a poor life back home, doesnt make their treatment here ok 4 there is no way the state and the law treated the immigrants as equal, and i cant find anything to suggest the governments were doing much to integrate the immigrants with the british and vice versa. all th elegislation passed around this time could be considered racist, in today's world immoral. when we needed labour we recruited and as the need for foreign labour decreased we started to get more unemployment - that article said the first people to be made redundant were the immigrants. as a mostly white country holding onto to our empire we were a deeply ingrained instutionalised racist country. a flimsly law might say equality but the reality was there was no fully equality.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 13:38:17 GMT
he also said the govt did not did not believe that this prejudice could be overcome by a positive programme of public education, legislation or administrative action so did fuck all Did you miss the bits about the pre-warning and other pressing matters?! giving them a warning beforehand is hardly doing something is it? if the government were fully aware of the possible consequences and problems the immigrants would face and really wanted to do something constructive then why did it take another 15-20 years to bring in legislation banning racism etc.? just telling them before they get on a boat basically IS doing sod all in reality.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 4, 2014 14:10:56 GMT
my second article is from a socialist magazine that is biased against the tories but reading it they allude to the fact that abour were just as bad.
mick its not enough to ban racism if you are not going to tackle the cause or actively persue perputrators. the media, tv, comedians etc were allowed to get away with racism so there is no hope to educate a population
|
|