[Macrobat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...982376,00.html

Kind of a response to Tony Blair's speech about assimilation into the cluture one immigrates to - it sort of lends more than a tiny bit of credence to what people such as Doofy (for instance) and Mark Steyn have been saying about the Muslim immigrants in Europe all along, doesn't it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

URL is broken

[Millennium]

No luck with a search, either.

[Doofy]

Code:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1982376,00.html

Most things at the Guardian are broken. It's run by lefties, see.

[moodymonster]

cheers for the link Doofy.

nuts.

I think there'll be a backlash somewhere along the way soon. Just hope it's not played to people like the BNPs advantage.

Then again looking at some of the comments here:

BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Is soldiers' housing good enough?

people are probably more prepared to sit back and attack those who stand to protect them, than stand up for themselves.

Then again the comments could be mostly from knobheads.

[Sky Captain]

Hey 'Bat, were you required to perform regular maintenence duties in basic?
In OCS even we had to keep the bathrooms and quarters spotless.
And we had maintainence personel to make repairs.
We had a maintainence officer that was responsible for the base's condition.
And he had a maintaince wing just for such tasks.
Hell the aircraft maintenance crew kept our birds SPOTLESS!
Can't these blokes get a can of Comet and clean a bathtub?

[moodymonster]

I think the maintenance is outsourced to private companies.

Soldiers get billed for not keeping their accomdation clean.

The problem essentially comes down to lack of investment over a long period. Affecting major things like electricity, plumbing, heating, running water, structural integrity and 'comforts' like carpets, doors, furnishings etc

There are also reports of buildings not available for use due to them not meeting fire regulations that came into force in the 1970s. And of soldiers not being able to use local medical facilities due to the lack of working infrastructure.

There are currently 22,000 soldiers still in Germany because there is no suitable accomodation for them here - despite the army being much smaller than it used to be.

Not all accomodation is like this, but a lot apparently is.

[moodymonster]

you can see some pics here:

Gallery

[moodymonster]

you'd never think we were the 7th economic power in the world...

[moodymonster]

but we do have money to spend on this:

Black tape has been put on the desks of civil servants to show them where to put their pens as part of a £7m Government 'efficiency' drive.
It is the latest idea from consultants being paid to come up with so-called innovative ideas to improve the working environment of public sector staff.
The tape is also used to mark out exactly where the computer keyboard should be placed, as well telephones. Previous novel thinking by the consultants included a desk ban on family photographs - along with any 'inactive fruit'.

�7million spent on consultants who advise civil servants to put 'black tape on desks' | News | This is London

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

but we do have money to spend on this:

�7million spent on consultants who advise civil servants to put 'black tape on desks' | News | This is London

UGH!! We went through this at GM [twice] when I worked there. Talk about inefficient! People spent more time putting everything in it's "proper" location than they did getting any work done.

[moodymonster]

If someone came and asked me what a banana on my desk was for, I think I'd be sorely tempted to suggest they'd get it inserted into them if they didn't go forth and procreate.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...982376,00.html

Kind of a response to Tony Blair's speech about assimilation into the cluture one immigrates to - it sort of lends more than a tiny bit of credence to what people such as Doofy (for instance) and Mark Steyn have been saying about the Muslim immigrants in Europe all along, doesn't it?

Not really. The author states that he appreciates his upbringing with muslim family values, and he feels that he'd rather retain those ideals than be assimilated into British culture, who's family values he doesn't agree with.

Note that by "family values" he does not mean covering the women up or spreading Islam. He simply likes how close his family is.

I think if anything this highlights paranoia about Muslims.

[vmarks]

Are you seriously suggesting "he just likes how close his family is" ?

And nothing more?

Odd. Because the message I read is "Britain should integrate into Muslim Values"
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | Britain should integrate into Muslim values

And the message isn't one about just a tight-knit family unit.

"What might the community say?" is the threat his father used against him.

This is the same threat that is used repeated prior to honor-killings of Muslim daughters.

Which is one of the reasons the English are having a discussion about integration in the first place.

But none of this should come as a surprise: The Guardian has hired reporters from Hizb ut-Tahrir in the past - to see them now print "Whether the danger is religious extremism, drugs or crime, those involved are largely third-generation Muslims who are so integrated into white society that they are emulating its worst characteristics. Integration did not save them, it created them." is not surprising.

They simply have it exactly in reverse, regarding religious extremism - which is what the integration discussion is about.



Boyfriend was stabbed 46 times in 'honour killing', court told - Britain - Times Online

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | 'Honour killing' father begins sentence

U.K.: British Police Launch Offensive Against 'Honor' Killings - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Honour crimes: Honour killings in the UK

But nevermind all that. GoMac tells me it's just about a tight-knit family.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Are you seriously suggesting "he just likes how close his family is" ?

And nothing more?

Odd. Because the message I read is "Britain should integrate into Muslim Values"
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | Britain should integrate into Muslim values

Oh c'mon. The title was meant to draw you in. No where in the article does he state that Britain should be forced to adopt Muslim values. He notes the lack of values in Britain, and expresses how he'd rather not become more British. The title was meant to communicate that it's Britain that needs new values, not Muslims.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And the message isn't one about just a tight-knit family unit.

"What might the community say?" is the threat his father used against him.

This is the same threat that is used repeated prior to honor-killings of Muslim daughters.

Inference and hyperbole. No where does he support honor killings.

And according to the article, the author is wondering why Britain is trying to force a certain set of values onto Muslims when he doesn't think British values are all that hot either.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Which is one of the reasons the English are having a discussion about integration in the first place.

I'm surprised a Libertarian like you supports impeding the rights of people who have done nothing to harm others.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

But none of this should come as a surprise: The Guardian has hired reporters from Hizb ut-Tahrir in the past - to see them now print "Whether the danger is religious extremism, drugs or crime, those involved are largely third-generation Muslims who are so integrated into white society that they are emulating its worst characteristics. Integration did not save them, it created them." is not surprising.

Ah, so you're against Muslims having a voice. Are you sure you're a libertarian?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

They simply have it exactly in reverse, regarding religious extremism - which is what the integration discussion is about.

Hyperbole again. No where does he mention extremist activities.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Boyfriend was stabbed 46 times in 'honour killing', court told - Britain - Times Online

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | 'Honour killing' father begins sentence

U.K.: British Police Launch Offensive Against 'Honor' Killings - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Honour crimes: Honour killings in the UK

But nevermind all that. GoMac tells me it's just about a tight-knit family.

I'm not sure you want to start this mud slinging. There have been many Christian honor killings in this country too. Your unfair assessment of this article simply because the author is muslim is unsettling.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

And according to the article, the author is wondering why Britain is trying to force a certain set of values onto Muslims when he doesn't think British values are all that hot either.

The author simply doesn't understand British values... ...a common feature of those who don't wish to integrate.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Oh c'mon. The title was meant to draw you in. No where in the article does he state that Britain should be forced to adopt Muslim values. He notes the lack of values in Britain, and expresses how he'd rather not become more British. The title was meant to communicate that it's Britain that needs new values, not Muslims.

Your last sentence and the headline aren't qualitatively different. Try again.

Inference and hyperbole. No where does he support honor killings.

He believes in Muslim values above all, and disdains British values, and doesn't ever acknowledge that there might be a problem with Muslim values in the British experience.

After all, honor killings, and demonstrations encouraging the bombing of the UK do leave a mark.

And according to the article, the author is wondering why Britain is trying to force a certain set of values onto Muslims when he doesn't think British values are all that hot either.

Britain hasn't tried to force a particular set of values on anyone. The debate thus far has been about a few things:

A culture that permits honor killings. A culture that has complained to the British police about people flying the English flag. A culture that insists everyone adjust to it rather than making some concessions.

I'm surprised a Libertarian like you supports impeding the rights of people who have done nothing to harm others.

I'm not supporting impeding anyone's rights. I'm exercising my free speech to point out problems with the author's position.

Ah, so you're against Muslims having a voice. Are you sure you're a libertarian?

Where do you come up with these false accusations? I'm not opposed to him having a voice. I'm in favor of my having a voice to show that the author is less than genuine, and should not be given credibility.

Hyperbole again. No where does he mention extremist activities.

You are now showing that you failed to read the article, or are lying.

He wrote:

"Whether the danger is religious extremism, drugs or crime, those involved are largely third-generation Muslims who are so integrated into white society that they are emulating its worst characteristics. Integration did not save them, it created them."

He is blaming integration for creating religious extremism. This is a lie on behalf of the author.

I'm not sure you want to start this mud slinging. There have been many Christian honor killings in this country too. Your unfair assessment of this article simply because the author is muslim is unsettling.

Many? Nonsense. I now ask you to cite the number of honor killings in America due to Christianity. I think you'll find the number to be demonstrably low, to nonexistant.

My assessment of the author's position is correct. He mentions religious extremism, and then blames it on integration.

[Sayf-Allah]

I would really like to spend some time proving vmarks wrong but I'm too busy planning the honour killing of my sister. Because after all honour killings is a part of my culture.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

I would really like to spend some time proving vmarks wrong but I'm too busy planning the honour killing of my sister. Because after all honour killings is a part of my culture.

Culture or religion? Not the same.

V

[villalobos]

I don't see much of anything here either. Some people like to blow things out of proportion it seems. If anything I agree with some of his comments, especially this one

'Muslim parents also tend to be less interested in child-centred parenting and more into parent-centred parenting. For example, when I was growing up there was no possibility of answering back to my parents, and this was accompanied by an all-pervasive fear of letting them down. This was a model of parenting that put great faith in deference and, while at the time it felt regressive, it was also what kept my generation in check.'

parent-centered parenting : something we need to go back to.

[Troll]

How much did the Brits integrate into African culture when they colonised Africa?

I was talking to an illegal Ivorien immigrant a few days back and he said to me, "Did the Europeans ask for permission from us before they colonised my country? So why do I need permission to colonise theirs." Of course, it's not quite as simple as all that, but the man has a point. In many respects, the immigration problem is the result of the world that the West, notably colonial powers like the UK, have created. Had they dealt more equitably with the rest of the world instead of raping the raw materials out of the colonies, perhaps none of this would be happening today.

[Macrobat]

Colonization is NOT the same as voluntarily immigrating to another country.

And you knew that fully well before you posted. You just enjoy being disengenuous.

Your "friend" didn't colonize anything - he immigrated. The man has no point, whatsoever, for that matter, neither do you.

Here's a newsflash for you both: there are no extant colonial powers today.

If he wants to "colonize" he must first conquer, which - admittedly - Muslims seem on track to do in Eurabia.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Colonization is NOT the same as voluntarily immigrating to another country.

You're right, colonialisation is a far more heinous crime than illegal immigration. Colonialisation is a crime against humanity. Illegal immigration is a petty misdemeanour.

How many clandestines have you ever spoken to? Let me guess - none!

Voluntary immigration is an interesting term to apply. Having heard the kinds of conditions most of these people are fleeing and the conditions most of them endure to get here, I'd hardly call what they do voluntary immigration! This particular guy woke up one night to find his parents being hacked to death with a machete by rebels. He and his sister fled to the "safety" of government troops who raped his sister. Months later he made it back to his family's home to find everything destroyed. He sold what he could and with the money paid a series of smugglers that got him to Paris. He applied for asylum along the way but since he had never been involved in politics and couldn't prove a threat on his life, it was made clear to him that he wouldn't get it. Would you say he voluntarily decided to leave? I wouldn't.

I thought what he said about colonialisation was quite provocative and perhaps a way for him to justify his actions but the more I think about it, the more he has a point. Colonialisation wasn't just overt military occupation. Very often it was European individuals coming along, talking to the locals, giving them some beads and taking their land ... or killing them with smallpox and stealing their land. Now French people say that Cote d'Ivoiriens are coming over and taking jobs from French. That's a kind of colonialisation I think. Colonialisation is a large part of the reason why Africa is unstable today so in a way, the French are reaping what they sowed. In fact, if you line up all of the reasons why Africa is unstable, colonialisation and the West playing out the Cold War by proxy in Africa are the top two reasons for instability there. And you can put financial colonialisation in the form of globalisation in the top 5 too.

[red rocket]

Integration?

Originally Posted by Sarfraz Manzoor

As the clamour for British Muslims to integrate grows louder, it is worth remembering that, amid all the negatives arising from living inside a tightly knit community, there are also positives worth retaining - the greater the integration, the weaker the sense of community. It is the third generation - those in their teens and 20s who have been raised by parents often more liberal than my parents' generation - who are the young men and women now tarnishing the reputation of British Muslims.

He's not wrong, you know.

In the old days, people by and large used to be much more concerned about not "dishonouring" their parents and bringing "shame" to their community than they are nowadays.

Then again, it's not as if first or second generation immigrants are likely to express extremist views that may be interpreted as an attack on "British values", they'd be more concerned with not making a nuisance of themselves. Else, why immigrate in the first place?

Once, however, you are "integrated" into mainstream society, i.e. disintegrated from your family's culture, it becomes much easier to formulate yourself as a rebel, turning towards some extremist preacher or other who might offer a semblance of a cultural identity you didn't get at home.

-------------------------------------
Values?

Could somebody kindly explain to me what those "British values" are? Because I'm not so sure there is such a thing. Really, what are they?

Originally Posted by Tony Blair

Few would disagree with the qualities that go towards that British identity.

Qualities of creativity built on tolerance, openness and adaptability, work and self improvement, strong communities and families and fair play, rights and responsibilities and an outward looking approach to the world that all flow from our unique island geography and history.

If these values are what makes us British ... then devolution is a necessary part of keeping Britain together.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Meaningless gibberish. Blair doesn't seem to know what they are, either.

Let's take it apart one by one:

"tolerance, openness and adaptability"

- Let's see: we hate the Frogs, we hate the Krauts, we don't want the Euro or the metric system, and we can't bear communities who are not integrating themselves.

"work and self improvement"

- I guess them foreigners aren't interested in that, course not.

"strong communities and families and fair play"

- Unless they're Muslim.

"rights and responsibilities"

- Rights to do what? Responsibilities for what?

"and an outward looking approach to the world that all flow from our unique island geography and history"

- Brittania rule the waves!


So, if I don't know, if the Prime Minister doesn't know, what are those values the Muslims are supposed to embrace?

And why now, after all these years? Because of Islamic extremism? Because of terrorism? It's as if Blair and cohorts were saying that Muslim values were the cause.

The government has merely designated a scapegoat to distract public attention from its own responsibility. Muslim values or non-integration have nothing to do with any of the problems we're facing to day. Nothing.

[Macrobat]

LMAO! I have no need to speak to any "clandestines."

Hate to break it to you, they're illegal aliens, no matter what cute new phrase of the day name you apply to them.

What's more, Your Majesty, I have spoken with illegals, on several occasions.

Once again, Troll pontificates, then speaks from his self-annointed seat of being the sole arbiter of truth and justice.

Too bad he STILL hasn't got even the url of a Google ressembling the truth.

What he said about colonization is an ATTEMPTED justification for his breaking the law by immigrating illegally. That would be readily apparent to anyone without their cranium inhibited with bowel wall cavity blockage.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Could somebody kindly explain to me what those "British values" are? Because I'm not so sure there is such a thing.

If you haven't got it by now, you're never going to. I find this to be a common trait amongst those who vote "left".

Go read "England Your England" by Orwell for a clue.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If you haven't got it by now, you're never going to. I find this to be a common trait amongst those who vote "left".

Go read "England Your England" by Orwell for a clue.

Orwell was a Labour Party supporter you ninny.

He was also a lifelong socialist and strongly opposed to colonialism.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

LMAO! I have no need to speak to any "clandestines."

Hate to break it to you, they're illegal aliens, no matter what cute new phrase of the day name you apply to them.

What's more, Your Majesty, I have spoken with illegals, on several occasions.

Once again, Troll pontificates, then speaks from his self-annointed seat of being the sole arbiter of truth and justice.

Too bad he STILL hasn't got even the url of a Google ressembling the truth.

What he said about colonization is an ATTEMPTED justification for his breaking the law by immigrating illegally. That would be readily apparent to anyone without their cranium inhibited with bowel wall cavity blockage.

Clearly you have an opinion although it's hard to discern through all the insults. I personally think the guy has a point and I don't really understand why you object so strongly. I don't see where I professed any "truth and justice".

Irrespective of what his motive is in making the point, I think it is interesting. He knows that what he is doing is ILLEGAL. What he's saying is that it is morally justifiable. People on the far right like to talk about the invasion of Europe by clandestines and this guy is taking them on on their own terms. He's saying, yes, we are invading you, just as you invaded us. And we're getting as much permission for our invasion as you got for yours. And check it out, our invasion is doing far less damage to you than yours did to ours. He's saying if you insist on having laws that condemn us to live in the conditions we were living in; conditions that are largely the result of your past practices, then I'm going to ignore those laws.

I do think that in the absence of Europe admitting to its immoral colonialist practices and the West in general doing something to right the wrongs they have done to Africans, it's morally defensible that they do something about it themselves. I personally think that all of the people in Africa should be given the option to become citizens of the countries who colonised them and to benefit from some of the institutions and richesse that was built on the back of African resources and African labour. And frankly, I think that arrangement would suit much of Europe that desperately needs young people that will work and pay social security.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath 

Orwell was a Labour Party supporter you ninny.

He was also a lifelong socialist and strongly opposed to colonialism.

I'm well aware of Orwell's political bent, thanks.

But that's the closest I've read to an explanation of British values.

[Macrobat]

The West "admitted" to the immorality of its colonial practices LONG ago. The British Empire, for one, wholesale-ly granted independence to many of its possessions after WWII and put the wheels in motion to release the rest of them at the same time. How much more pentence is required for you? Most of the now-independent countries you cite are FAR better off now from the infusion of Western ideals of justice and governance, rather than "oppressed" as rank apologists such as yourself would like for people to believe.

Look for the SUCCESSFUL countries in this world, then look into their histories.

You, sir, are continuing to beat a long dead horse in order to further your own agenda.

Said agenda is MORE than apparent by your specious referral to ILLEGAL aliens as "clandestines."

If he wants to ignore those laws, he can be deported and ignore them from the safety of a country NOT providing him with a safe place to live and quite probably a welfare handout.

He (nor ANY of them) has any inate "right" to ANY of those amenities, unless he complies with the laws of the country SUPPLYING those benefits.

It's a plain, simple black/white issue - there ARE no gray areas - unless they (or enablers such as you) start attempting to build them.

If a person did NOT comply with the regulations to enter a country, they are there ILLEGALLY and have NO rights whatsoever under that country's system of jurisprudence.

Therefore, the most humane thing to do is return them to legality.

Nuance it all you want - I can still smell the fertilizer.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The West "admitted" to the immorality of its colonial practices LONG ago. The British Empire, for one, wholesale-ly granted independence to many of its possessions after WWII and put the wheels in motion to release the rest of them at the same time. How much more pentence is required for you?

Well that was magnanimous of them wasn't it? Try this. Go into an antique shop, smash a couple of antique vases, apologise and then leave without paying for them. And when the owner stops you say, "But I've left your shop now so it's all good."

I think the "developed countries" owe Africa a little more than just an apology and giving them BACK their independence. They broke stuff and then left without paying for it. In fact, it's not over. The developed world continues to break things in much of Africa.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Most of the now-independent countries you cite are FAR better off now from the infusion of Western ideals of justice and governance, rather than "oppressed" as rank apologists such as yourself would like for people to believe.

Maybe. Some of them had pretty advanced civilisations and ideas of justice and governance. Read up on Ubuntu some time. But that's not all they got out of the deal is it? Europe didn't just export justice and governance to them during colonialisation and the US didn't just export democracy to them during the Cold War. They also had arbitrary borders imposed on them. They also got shipped off to places like America as slaves. They also had their countries' economies made into resource-generating, furnished goods consuming economies that were dependent.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You, sir, are continuing to beat a long dead horse in order to further your own agenda.

Pray tell, what is my agenda?

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Said agenda is MORE than apparent by your specious referral to ILLEGAL aliens as "clandestines."

Sheesh, I thought this point was too juvenile to respond to the first time you raised it. Do you know what a clandestine is? Where does it say that illegal immigrants have to be referred to as illegal aliens? Call them whatever you want. The only reason I used clandesine is because one of the guys I met calls himself clandestino online.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

If a person did NOT comply with the regulations to enter a country, they are there ILLEGALLY and have NO rights whatsoever under that country's system of jurisprudence.

Everyone knows it's illegal. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't. The thing is that Tony Blair sits there and says assimilate into our culture if you want to live here. Tony Blair says people who have no right to be here should stay out. And this guy says, rewind a bit Mr. Blair - you blokes had no right to come into our country and yet you did and when you got there how much assimilating did you do? If you don't find that interesting as a point, great. I do find that interesting and I find it rings true on many levels. And that is why I posted.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Could somebody kindly explain to me what those "British values" are? Because I'm not so sure there is such a thing. Really, what are they?

Ah, because you don't think there is such a thing then it must not exist.

I'll bet that makes your life a lot easier in many different aspects.

[Doofy]

Lefties never see the traditional values and culture of their own country. It's one of the reasons why they're lefties (and seek to impose foreign values - socialism and communism - on their society).

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Lefties never see the traditional values and culture of their own country. It's one of the reasons why they're lefties (and seek to impose foreign values - socialism and communism - on their society).

Yet in this very thread you attribute "the closest I've read to an explanation of British values" to George Orwell, a passionate lifelong socialist and Labour Party supporter.

I guess what you meant to say was 'Lefties never see the traditional values and culture of their own country, unless they do'.

p.s. hate to prolong the smackdown, but portraying socialism as a foreign set of values is also wrong. Many important aspects of modern socialism - notably nationalised healthcare and the trade union movement - started in the UK.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath 

Yet in this very thread you attribute "the closest I've read to an explanation of British values" to George Orwell, a passionate lifelong socialist and Labour Party supporter.

I guess what you meant to say was 'Lefties never see the traditional values and culture of their own country, unless they do'.

You sure Orwell was a socialist? Or is it just that you want him to be? You really think he didn't see the errors in socialism before he wrote Animal Farm?

Originally Posted by nath 

p.s. hate to prolong the smackdown, but portraying socialism as a foreign set of values is also wrong. Many important aspects of modern socialism - notably nationalised healthcare and the trade union movement - started in the UK.

So, socialism was a political doctrine before Marx and Engels came along?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Go read "England Your England" by Orwell for a clue.

I have. Maybe you ought to re-read it.

We're not living in 1941. The traditional instinct towards a privateness of English life has been undermined by ubiquitous surveillance by the State. The policemen may not carry revolvers, but plenty of them now carry fully automatic weapons. There are ID cards on the way, man. Old England is dead.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I get the definite impression from you that you seem to consider yourself more English than me because you're right wing.

Personally, I think Englishness (or Britishness, even) isn't defined by what side of the political spectrum you're on.
If, as Orwell suggests, it is a kind of gentle, unintellectual, nostalgic naïveté (coupled with a penchant for foul language and alcohol) that defines Englishness, that is hardly something that can - practically - be called a value, it's just a characteristic.

(At any rate, my traditional (according to Orwell) English dislike for armed police and surveillance now stands in conflict with the law.)

Nor is it a characteristic that one can ask people to adopt. You can do it of your own accord; after all, the Royal Family aren't British, either. But you cannot impose it.

If you try, you can't just do it to Muslims, you'll also have to impose it on all the other un-English groups in the country, say "Asians", blacks, Scots.

The way I see it, the English thing to do when one spots a Muslim one is offended by is to just ignore him. And vice versa.

[Sayf-Allah]

Doofy, could you explain what "British values" are for us foreigners? Because I one day might move to Britain and I'd like to know what to expect. Thanks.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Doofy, could you explain what "British values" are for us foreigners? Because I one day might move to Britain and I'd like to know what to expect. Thanks.

You've already got a better idea than half the people who live here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

We're not living in 1941. The traditional instinct towards a privateness of English life has been undermined by ubiquitous surveillance by the State. The policemen may not carry revolvers, but plenty of them now carry fully automatic weapons. There are ID cards on the way, man. Old England is dead.

Let's not confuse the nature of Britishness with the current situation developed by these idiots we have in power.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You've already got a better idea than half the people who live here.

I know.

Go to the pub, (pretend to) drink beer, go to the match, go to the pub and (pretend to) drink more beer.



No but really. What are these British values everyone is talking about. What sets you (Brits) apart from the rest of the world?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

No but really. What are these British values everyone is talking about. What sets you (Brits) apart from the rest of the world?

Quiet belligerence? Twee anarchism?
Think "Irish" but more vertical, with more potatoes.

It's real difficult to put into words.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Quiet belligerence? Twee anarchism?
Think "Irish" but more vertical, with more potatoes.

It's real difficult to put into words.

it's a certain je ne sais quoi

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's real difficult to put into words.

If you can't put it in words how do you expect immigrant to know "how to behave"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

If you can't put it in words how do you expect immigrant to know "how to behave"?

Don't ask me. I'm not in charge of the place.

[Face Ache]

Englishness involves warm beer and complaining about the weather. Some northern English dialects have over thirty words to describe drizzle. Complaining about the weather is probably a genetic trait, as it apparently hasn't occurred to their forebears for generations to move somewhere sunny.

Some English people do travel to sunny places for a few weeks of the year, where they can be found roasting in the sun, while complaining about the weather (being hot - for which they have few descriptive words). Wherever they travel they also like to complain about the lack of a decent curry (a popular English meal).

The English also invent lots of sports they aren't very good at and travel the world losing at them. Considering they're inventing the damn games, they should probably change the rules to suit their skills IMO. Maybe spin off soccer rioting as a separate sport. But that hasn't occurred to them yet, so I suggest you go check the cricket scores for a laugh.

A popular theory is that they lose so miserably at sports so they can complain about it.

Being English also requires a fondness for meat byproducts (particularly black pudding and Spam™) and rising damp. British culture culminated in the twentieth century with The Benny Hill Show and Are You Being Served? and has been in a slow decline ever since, a fact the English like to complain about.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You sure Orwell was a socialist?

Yes. But if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You really think he didn't see the errors in socialism before he wrote Animal Farm?

Animal Farm is a satire on communism and totalitatianism. This is GCSE-level stuff, but I'll humour you - there is a distinction, which Orwell made clear himself, when a previous generation of idiots tried to say that his work was an attack on socialism and/or the Labour Party:

My recent novel is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the book is a satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences. The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.

http://www.editoreric.com/greatlit/authors/Orwell.html

It's an eloquent rebuttal of much of the rubbish you've spouted in this thread.

However you're not the first, and you probably won't be the last. Try reading this and educate yourself.

[Doofy]

And Orwell separated socialism and centralised-economy communism how?

Fact is, the bloke was all over the place with his politics. The best we can hope for in describing him is "anti totalitarian". If he were alive today he'd be a Lib Dem, and like most Lib Dems, he had little understanding that all forms of leftist philosophy inevitably lead to totalitarianism.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Fact is, the bloke was all over the place with his politics. The best we can hope for in describing him is "anti totalitarian".

Fact is, he describes himself - in the quote I've provided you with - as a supporter of the Labour Party, at a point in history when that was most definitely a socialist organisation.

That may make you uncomfortable given that you were quoting him approvingly a few posts ago, but there it is.

[Troll]

Doofus, your carrying on with this argument is embarassing! Nath has well and truly smashed your argument.

[Face Ache]

"This parrot is dead!"

"No it isn't!"