Some replies...

We aren't talking about 1949 and commonwealth immigration in this post. Also what parliament do is often not in the interests of the working class here.

I wasn't aware of that, perhaps because I haven't read the whole thread. Parliament's job, by the way, is not to serve the interests of the working classes. It's to serve the interests of the entire country, rich and poor alike. I think the implicit suggestion that immigration is particularly harmful to the working classes probably explains the rise of proto-working class neo-Nazi organisations like the National Front. Not something any of us should welcome.

Plus the numbers from the era are absolutely nothing compared to the numbers since 97....Which is obviously what we are talking about.

It wasn't obvious to me (and I'm not sure you can break a historical timeline into convenient parts capable of being analysed in isolation from the rest anyway. With regard to a rise in numbers since 1997 I don't know but I will take it on faith you are right.

Immigrants who come here in reasonable numbers, work hard and integrate are not a problem.

How generous of you. Dare I say spoken like a working class racist?

This country, being an island, is partly built upon immigration and to be English itself is to be often a mixture of nations.

Often but not always? What you are doesn't change. The western world is now generally multi-cultural and multi-national. It doesn't matter whether your an island or a continent or anything in between.

Also, someone can become English or British over time and I'm ok with that.....If their allegiance is here then I welcome them happily.

Again, how generous of you. I'm sure it comes as a relief to the immigrant community that over time and with good behaviour, there's a constituency of people like you willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The trouble is, we welcome immigrants with passports regardless of an allegiance test so like it or not, they've become English whether they meet that standard or not. To suggest otherwise implies you think some Brits are "purer" or more British than others. Let's not go there, eh? It's a rocky road.

I think your position of 'looking at ourselves' for the problems that multiculturalism have given us is a bit rich.

Well, as you and I (and everyone else) are the only people who are capable of solving the problem, I think looking at myself is a pretty good place to start. Or is blame just easier than introspection?

The left have given us these problems and now we should 'look at ourselves'.....Nonsense.

Seriously?...you really think huge and complex social issues can be dismissed with a wave of the hand in the direction of blaming the left. No bloody wonder things don't change.

If someone is against the British state or is British but wishes they weren't they should be given free plane tickets to the country of their choice. I don't think we need them.

What about those who have a legitimate grievance but want to stay and change the British state for the better, rather than run off home. There's a lot about England I don't like and I've had many opportunities to live elsewhere. But I come home because I want to make my country better; not give up on it and slope off somewhere else. I admire those who stay in the face of prejudice. They're paying a high price for rewards that eventually people like you and I will benefit from when society does become a fairer, better, and less prejudiced place. And it will. It may take a long time, but we'll get there.

No special revisions of British society should be made for any group within it......This is Britain, you take the rough with the smooth or you can always bugger off.

No. Where you find rough you try to change things for the better. A healthy society is in a constant state of self-examination and revision. It's not static and f*** off if you don't like it. That's what hallmarks a democracy which, thank God, we are.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Yes, I see where you're coming from though the example you give is more nuanced and interesting that it at first appears because democracy isn't straightforward. Suppose, as you suggest, Sharia Law was permitted in a segment of society that welcomed it and chose willingly to adhere to it while the remainder of society was unaffected (as would probably be the case in the unlikely event that Sharia Law was ever to permitted at all). That, surely, far from being the antithesis of democracy would represent democracy in a highly evolved state; two antithetical frameworks operating peacefully alongside each other.

Don't get me wrong I am not advocating the above or trying to be Utopian, just making the point that these arguments run deeper than they appear. Ditto the question of "one law for all people." I haven't thought that one through and I suspect you're right; at least with regard to maintaining certain standards that is a pre-requisite for any governable society but still, there remains room to debate the point. Does democracy require the subjugation of all to a single rule of law, or is choice permissible so long as nothing is administered by force on someone who doesn't want it?

I don't know. The comments above are just food for thought.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

So to speak of too many immigrants creates the 'National Front'.

To speak (or openly complain) of too many immigrants results in the creation of "extremist groups" including the National Front, yes. At least in part.

So I suppose this would mean that the far right didn't exist in the country before ....What was your year? 1949.

That's adding 2 and 2 to make 5. I didn't say or imply there was no far right before 1949. I merely commented on the rise of a certain type of group after that year. The far right, by the way, have many motives beyond racism, social and economic.

It's just a simplistic and silly comment of which your post was littered with.

You obviously don't really understand why these groups exist and wish to put them down to a simplistic narrative.

Possibly, And you don't?

Plus the numbers from the era are absolutely nothing compared to the numbers since 97....Which is obviously what we are talking about.

Damn right you can.....Here's a suggestion....Maybe know what you're talking about....It might actually help.

I won't respond to opinion followed by personal attack.

Well, if you are going to start name calling I'm going to compare you to a stupid scrumbag. We can continue along that vein if you wish or you can grow up. I would prefer not to use word insults.

But you just did call me a stupid scumbag, or words to that effect. See above. It doesn't particularly offend me, but pot, kettle.

Really? Where do you live, London? There are many parts of the country that aren't multi-cultural.

Rural Northants. In a village with three farms and zero commercial establishments. Not even a pub. The local towns are less multicultural than London (where I grew up) but multicultural nonetheless. I can assure you my kids school is populated with all creeds and colours, and so much the better.

'More pure' what a ridiculous way of describing allegiance. These are your words not mine and I disown your description: ridiculous and simplistic caricature.

Yes, they are my words and yes, they may be simplistic. But that was where reading what you wrote took me. I didn't dream them up in response to nothing. Which, perhaps, shows that if you play with fire, you risk getting burned.

The British government does care and again you don't know what you're talking about.

I would say swearing an oath which some, doubtless, view as simply the price of passport is evidence only of a very high level of caring. If you present an oath and leave it at that, you won't engender a lot of allegiance. Nonetheless, I concede your point to some extent.

The reality is that the left's previous support of multi-culturalism has compounded integration and social issues.

But in two posts you've gone from "the left has given us these problems" (quote) to "the left has compounded these problems." Those are two very different statements. Which is your view?

If they didn't have allegiance I would give them the free tickets and put them on the plane.

Is allegiance the by-product of swearing an oath, or it something that develops over time? Here, I think you are being simplistic. At the time one emigrates (I've sort of been in that situation myself), one does so because one is attracted to the country to which one is moving and wants to feel allegiance. Over time, reality can erode the initial intent. I think immigrants start from the point allegiance. Part of the duty of a successful nation is to build on that, rather than destroy it.

We have plenty of people who wish to change many things about Britain who still have allegiance to it...Most of us wish to change things....This isn't about wanting rid of people who wish for a better system....But I'd get rid of fifth columnists full stop.

Now who's being Utopian? But you are right; I think we would both support this statement, though we'd get there in opposing ways.

Whose better is that? Your better sounds like my worse. You aren't changing jack mate.

On the contrary, in this instance both our "betters" is a safe country with no fifth columnists and a population dedicated to the betterment of all. Again, we agree on the destination but disagree on the route there (I think.)

Judging by the election this country is pretty heavily against your ideology. There are far far more people here willing to work against your mindset than for it.

Absolutely. But we're discussing ideology, not whose view is more popular.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

All credit to the relatives and members of this church for their incredible reaction.

This is the Christian faith in action.

Hate, no not for us.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Its nice to see someone keeping on track with the orginal post about 9 senseless murders in a church, which as been hi-jacked into a debate about muslims ????

Theres someone in my head ... But its not me

X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS)

LOL yes I was thinking that myself. How the hell did it go from a race hate monster killing some devout Christians (because they were black) , to debating Muslims?

Edited by reborn (22 Jun 2015 9.03am)

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs