There is a lot of intolerance in this country. We claim to be tolerant, but, in truth, there is much intolerance especially in relation to people from overseas. There are many who are not necessarily racist, but are certainly xenophobic. We seem to have a superiority complex over anyone from abroad, which appears to date back to the days of Empire when we were arrogant enough to believe that we had superior values and principles which the rest of the world didn't share unless we handed those principles down to them. Jo Cox lost her life because she campaigned for the fair treatment of people who were forced to flee Syria. That humanitarian stance alienated her from people like her murderer, who couldn't understand or accept that the UK has a moral obligation to help people in need rather than shun them because they don't share the same birthplace. Sadly, there are so many who think they have a birthright, which trumps all other interests and considerations - a view endorsed so often in the media and in an age where mass media is so influential, a view which seems to be increasingly embraced.
He didn't have anything to do with ISIS, Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, all of whom he claimed a connection to. They all hate each other, so that kind of gave it away! I wouldn't say that his actions were completely removed from that sort of ideology though, as they're the sort of lunatics that caused his issues. He was a gay man being told that he was an evil scumbag, essentially. His dad being a Taliban supporting fruitcake clearly didn't help, either.
Yes, the US does appear very insular at times - which is surprising for a nation of immigrants. Migration of people and the resultant integration of cultures has been going on all over the world for thousands of years. I don't understand why it's such an issue for so many people in the 21st century when migration is far more likely given the ease with which people can travel. It's inevitable that people will move around, for all manner of reasons, when it is straightforward to travel great distances and settle. In the U.K, we seem to have difficulty accepting migration here by people from Eastern Europe, for example, but don't bat an eyelid at the right of Brits to go and retire in the sunshine of Spain. Incredible hypocrisy. And as for terrorism, the idea that it is imported in from abroad and can therefore be kept out by controlling borders is a myth which can be debunked very quickly and easily, in both the UK and the US.
On reflection, maybe we should keep Britain for the British. I mean the truly British. Not those of immigrant stock. So out go the Romans, the Normans, the Vikings, the Jews, the Irish, the Celts, all the Africans, West Indians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis and Bengalis brought here to work in our mills and factories or be servants, the Poles, Ukrainians and Italians encouraged to enter after the Second World War because of a labour shortage, more Poles, Romanians, other Eastern Europeans, more Indians and those from South East Asia who came to do low paid jobs in hospitals, factories and service industries which could not be filled etc etc.... Anyone left?
And the US, clearly, ought to kick out all those whose families have immigrated since 1491. The problem is there’s nowhere to put them. Perhaps the Indians could set aside portions of the US for them to live on. Of course, they wouldn’t be allowed to speak English or carry on their strange cultural traditions.
That could be corrected by the simple expedient of not making massive quantities of bad food easily and cheaply available. It would be for their own good.
Very true! But, unfortunately, unlikely to happen!... I lived there for 4 yrs. I've honestly never seen so many grossly overweight people in one place anywhere!....
The true nature of economic migration to the UK (structural/regional demographics and (un)employment, what business - especially Big Business (TM) are paying them, how these people are dealing with the UK cost of living etc) can be quickly discerned statistically with some basic data collection. For people like me who can objectively live by a "let the numbers decide" regime, no problem. Unfortunately there are too many electoral children / right-on prats / career politniks who are either too scared of or cannot deal with the true consequences of the numbers.
Similar can be said for Australia. So either both countries have a crippling inability to understand irony, or they experience a kind of self-loathing about their origins. Or, most likely, both.
In the name of patriotism, hordes of idiots want to stop the process which continues to define their country.
Did I say give me your tired, your poor and your huddled masses? You must be thinking of someone else.
One of the best constructed and enlightened sentences I've ever seen in my life, never mind on a football board!
Chesterfield are the latest club to risk much bile and hatred being directed at them http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36575406
My view remains that no sane employer would offer someone a job while they were awaiting a trial for rape. I know he is innocent until proven guilty from the point of view of criminal law but employers do background checks and would discover this before hiring him. They are going to look so stupid if he is convicted for a second time, but if he is acquitted I suppose they will consider it justified. I wouldn't because I think his defence still shows him to be of poor character even if he didn't commit a crime.
I'd largely have to agree with this, despite the implications about justice in our society. You might be able to get away with hiring someone in this situation if it wasn't well known, but it would still be a strange decision. Making that choice when you're in the public eye makes very little sense.
