This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Kermit8 Hevon 24 Feb 16 12.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
That proves you haven't been around much lately. People will get along with others at work, but when out of work, it's generally be with your own. Yes, there aren't riots and gang warfare but gradually people move away or notice how something that was within reach before, is now harder to attain. Go further north of Croydon and you get to Pollards Hill if you turn a left before Streatham Common. Same applies there as with other West Croydon's/Selhurst's etc. None of this does or will make any difference to me or you I can see but I know it does to others. I was actually thinking of supermarkets when I said 'mingle' But now that you mention it surely the place hasn't changed so much since I lived there just over a decade ago that more central London from Notting Hill to Fulham, from the West End to Hoxton, on a Friday and Saturday night is not awash with all types having one giant hanging out/drinking/eating/gigging/comedy club/nightclubbing mingle? That's a lot of people. i don't doubt your descriptions of those places one jot btw. And 'yes' i get it affects the natives negatively. Some aspects of multi-culturalism have most definitely failed. Edited by Kermit8 (24 Feb 2016 12.23pm)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 24 Feb 16 1.02pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by dannyh
That may be true of London and certain other large citys, but go up North, even Luton, and there are whole towns that are no go areas if you are white, or not "from round here". It works in places like New york becuase essentially everyone in the states is an immigrant (unless you like wearing feathers and howling at the full moon), you are by the very definition no more than a 5/6th generation imigrant, American history goes back, what about 300 years, or in other words starts from when the pale face decided they liked the climate. I just don't think it's in the psyche of your average Briton to accept foriegn visitors as equals. We have spent thousands of years repelling invaders of one form or another from the Vikings to the Romans. And I think that comes out in peoples attitudes towards foreigners in the less cosmopolitan arears of the UK. And I can see why, your essentailly asking people to give ground and be accepting of others when for generations they've done exactly the opposite. My perosnal stance is that there should be more emphasis on intergration rather than immigration. Edited by dannyh (24 Feb 2016 11.43am) Well many invaders came and stayed, Romans Vikings and Normans especially! These groups formed what Britain is today, laws, customs, language, monarchy etc. etc. And because many British cities were centres of trade, people from all over the world came and stayed as well. Even in Shakespeare's time London was a multi-cultural city and other outward-looking cities were multi-cultural as well, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. The main places where the natives have a "you're not from round these parts" have tended to be in rural places and small towns, where they do things like hang monkeys for be Napoleon's spies. London was multi-cultural before New York even existed as a city.
I used to be immortal |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 24 Feb 16 1.21pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
I was talking about slums in London pre-WWII and your view that London was not overcrowded with population figures equal to then. So we all have to live in flats now because of other cities that were originally built high and with attractive architecture to the eye of the tourist? Have you seen the state and quality of life of some of those blocks of flats just outside of European cities? Incidentally, those Western European capitals are smaller when including the sprawl of cities. When is it a problem? When all of Sutton & Croydon and everything south into Banstead and Kenley is 1 and 2 bedroom flats? Is there no choice anymore apart from move further away where you've been to maintain a similar lifestyle? There are tower blocks and crumbling estates the world over, and all over the UK. Bad planning and construction. But equally there are well planned and well built apartment blocks as well! People have always flocked to successful cities, whether from within the country or without. It's not just migrants from abroad who choose to live in London, but people from all over the UK as well. But London saw a loss of over 2m people between the end of the war until fairly recently, I'm sure we all know friends who have moved away in the last 25-30 years, for lifestyle reasons. The need for three and four bedroom family homes is now becoming much less than in past times, as we are tending to live in smaller groups, so one and two bedrooms are more appropriate for the future. Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, there are large parts of Croydon and Sutton, as well as many other areas, that could definitely use upgrading!
I used to be immortal |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 24 Feb 16 1.30pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by crystal balls
Well many invaders came and stayed, Romans Vikings and Normans especially! These groups formed what Britain is today, laws, customs, language, monarchy etc. etc. And because many British cities were centres of trade, people from all over the world came and stayed as well. Even in Shakespeare's time London was a multi-cultural city and other outward-looking cities were multi-cultural as well, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. The main places where the natives have a "you're not from round these parts" have tended to be in rural places and small towns, where they do things like hang monkeys for be Napoleon's spies. London was multi-cultural before New York even existed as a city. I think you'll find that the locals resisted these invasions very strongly and robustly and only 'accepted' these waves of newcomers after putting up one hell of a fight. Now, we seem to surrender without even a shot being fired.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 24 Feb 16 1.39pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by dannyh
Surely you mean we have spent thousands of years being successfully invaded by everyone from the Vikings to the Romans (and those pesky Normans)? Have you looked at how most of our place names have come about? Anglo-Saxon (Wich / Wick, Ham etc), Norse (Thorpe, Brough,-by, etc), Roman ad nauseum? The only difference this time around is that the incumbent state is actively encouraging it - mass migration means profits and those making the profits don't give a toss about the wellbeing of the average UK citizen. Edited by Mr_Gristle (24 Feb 2016 1.42pm)
Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 24 Feb 16 2.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
I think you'll find that the locals resisted these invasions very strongly and robustly and only 'accepted' these waves of newcomers after putting up one hell of a fight. Now, we seem to surrender without even a shot being fired. Each wave of invaders became the locals, mingling with the invaded, and produced a new hybrid, ergo a multi-cultural society! If we examined the DNA of modern Britons we would discover one of the most mongrel nations in the world, and all the better for it!
I used to be immortal |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Feb 16 3.23pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by dannyh
You left out Angles, Saxons and Normans which arguably secured the notion of a united kingdom of England (and ultimately a UK). Its probably worth noting as well that two of the seven Celtic tribes fought with the Romans against the Britons, and 'Vikings' also fought against the Angles and Saxons. There isn't really a 'British People'. Interestingly in keltoi the word pict translates as 'before us' and celtic myths suggests than even the Celts weren't the first to the Isles. Although invasion post 1066 wasn't an issue there was a lot of migration into the UK, often as a result of the UK being a dominant trade and naval power. Maybe this genetic factor x is what led to us then going out and capturing a third of the world. Originally posted by dannyh
My perosnal stance is that there should be more emphasis on intergration rather than immigration. Edited by dannyh (24 Feb 2016 11.43am) Absolutely, both by the state and individuals in society, on all divides. A factor maybe seen in EU migration not seen in other periods of immigration is that for EU residents, the migration is largely short term and temporary - Where as with Indian and Carribean migration a degree of 'permanence' was involved. Of course integration is a two way street, those who come and those who reside must both change to accommodate each other.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 24 Feb 16 3.52pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by crystal balls
Well many invaders came and stayed, Romans Vikings and Normans especially! These groups formed what Britain is today, laws, customs, language, monarchy etc. etc. And because many British cities were centres of trade, people from all over the world came and stayed as well. Even in Shakespeare's time London was a multi-cultural city and other outward-looking cities were multi-cultural as well, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. The main places where the natives have a "you're not from round these parts" have tended to be in rural places and small towns, where they do things like hang monkeys for be Napoleon's spies. London was multi-cultural before New York even existed as a city. Not good examples. Only the ruling classes of Normans came to Britain with a few soldiers to back them up. There was certainly no large scale occupation. Romans essentially came and went and the term Viking is rather quaint. Certainly Danes came here in reasonable numbers and the Normans were essentially Norseman but a much larger proportion of the population were Angles, Saxons and Jutes with remaining majority probably being here since the post ice age migration. In short, the population of Britain has remained almost unchanged for hundreds of years if not thousands of years. Until the last 50 years, migration has had only a tiny impact on the gene pool.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 24 Feb 16 4.06pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by crystal balls
Each wave of invaders became the locals, mingling with the invaded, and produced a new hybrid, ergo a multi-cultural society! If we examined the DNA of modern Britons we would discover one of the most mongrel nations in the world, and all the better for it! So we should embrace invasion rather than fight it? WW2 just a waste of time, was it?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 24 Feb 16 4.13pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well that's not entirely true, as each decade since WWII has been marked by periods of mass migration (After the War, Indian Migration, pakistani Migration and Afro-Caribbean Migration - all really driven by a need for employees - and all met with similar arguments about society and equally less savoury ones). The primary difference between EU migration and the previous migrations has been the tendency towards the previous migrations being permanent, rather than temporary additions to the population. I agree that migration, and populations, need to be managed, but the question always remains how to regulate fairly, without resorting to a prejudicial basis, and that's where the EU migration has been problematic, the capacity to control and direct it has been driven more by market forces than the state. For other countries in Europe its a more common experience I think, given the size of borders and entry points, where as the UK as an Island, always has had a potent capacity to regulate, control and police its borders with its neighbours (something that for most mainland European countries is a much bigger undertaking).
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 24 Feb 16 4.37pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
So we should embrace invasion rather than fight it? WW2 just a waste of time, was it? If any country is invaded by force of arms they, of course, have the right to fight against the invader. I'm not sure that is relevant to immigrants, though, is it? Many differing peoples have been coming peacefully to the UK for thousands of years, some settle here, some don't. Britain is an amalgam of many different peoples, and always has been.
I used to be immortal |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Feb 16 4.50pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Not good examples. Only the ruling classes of Normans came to Britain with a few soldiers to back them up. There was certainly no large scale occupation. Romans essentially came and went and the term Viking is rather quaint. Certainly Danes came here in reasonable numbers and the Normans were essentially Norseman but a much larger proportion of the population were Angles, Saxons and Jutes with remaining majority probably being here since the post ice age migration. In short, the population of Britain has remained almost unchanged for hundreds of years if not thousands of years. Until the last 50 years, migration has had only a tiny impact on the gene pool. Its probably worth noting as well that all of these peoples have more or less a shared genetic basis. Danes, Jutes, Nordics, Angles, Saxons and Franks largely stem from the same genetic basis. Britain's population has a number of diverse cultural and genetic influences. Primarily Anglo-Saxon (Germanics), Celtic (Welsh, Irish, Scotish and Cornish). Danes and Jutes in some areas of England and the North (Suffolk, Norfolk, Scotland and Ireland. Culturally and ethnically, the Germanic and Nordics are quite close (especially Jutes and Danes). The Normans seem largely to have been a mix of Germanic and Nordics, along with Franks. Certainly the invasion of 1066 was primarily the ruling classes and their troops, but over time there was a fair amount of migration, especially following the establishment of the Franks into what would become France.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.