Forum menu
Keir Starmer’s official spokesperson said the prime minister was a “patriot” who believed people should “absolutely” fly the British and English flags
Weak. So weak. So scared of the right. Useless.
Lets not forget that racisms works both ways.....
Are the street full of Taiwanese going to be happy and integrate with the (insert race/language) families who suddenly start renting the houses on their street?
Worth mentioning that there are massive areas of segregation/ghettoization in many large cities that's been going on since the 50's/60's. Who's fault that is probably isn't relevant now, but this has also not helped the perception of the "them & us" culture that the far right latch on to.
I'm all for integration and the rich tapestry of multi-cultural Britain, but without certain elements of society wanting to and being willing to integrate it's flogging a dead horse, and that willingness to integrate must be mutual....
You cannot reach your "some people" using pesky things like facts because they simply don't care.
Of course you can reach 'some people'. Certainly not all, but some. Those people are currently fed bullshit and they take it as read, feed them actual truth (regularly) and some people will take note of it.
Do we think 'Brick Dick' and 'Wheelie Bin Woman' would respond to a jolly good lecture on the realities of the world?
Weak. So weak. So scared of the right. Useless.
Shape-shifting chameleon, totally in thrall to Reform. It is like he is hypnotised.
What he should have said is:
"Hanging flags without permission on public property without permission will probably mean they'll be taken down. Whilst I share feelings of pride in the good things the UK has done and will defend the right of a person to display our national flags on their own property, I would hope that people who do this do it with sensitivity to others because that is the decent, British way to act".
Or similar. Basically saying "it is your right to be a bit of a **** if you want to, but it's not nice to exercise that right, so it's back on you".
I made a comment elsewhere about 'strong leaders' on another thread and got very expected pushback, this post is an example.
Fair, even, open, but unwilling to accept ****ery. Strong, effective leader.
Sadly Kryten with a wig is not one of them.
What he should have said is:
"Hanging flags without permission on public property without permission will probably mean they'll be taken down. Whilst I share feelings of pride in the good things the UK has done and will defend the right of a person to display our national flags on their own property, I would hope that people who do this do it with sensitivity to others because that is the decent, British way to act".
Too many bloody people in the country. We are building on farmland, spending a fortune on roads etc. Screwing the nice places by over crowding. We are full!
The current economic model is based on an ever increasing population - we're sort of doomed anyway (unless they find something else that works). Sort of reminds me of a pyramid scheme. 🤔
Western Europe is ****ed without immigration. Falling birth rates. Ever increasing numbers of old codgers who need care.
Yup. We are experiencing problems because of lower fertility, hence the need for immigrants to make up for the short fall. Having managed people returning from maternity leave, I honestly think that system we have in place is sh*t. If people are pissed off about immigration, we need to make it easier for people to work and have more than two children.
The ageing population wasn't an accident. In an attempt to make a saving in the short-term, the NHS screened the population and pumped them with drugs (costing £) to prevent hospitalisations (which cost ££££). This extended their lifespan. But they shot themselves in the foot, because a disproportional amount of spending is now on the very same people.
Regardless, even without that particular issue, the population would reach an unsustainable level eventually.
Racism, fear of others, constant right wing propaganda, they are scapegoats
A lot of racism is deflection - being part of the gang in a way that deflects peoples' attention away from their true origin.
Around the Brexit vote time, I knew someone who was posting hideous sh*t on Facebook... and some point I had to call him out and point out that his surname was French. Owned.
At the same time, another was also coming up with toxic sh*t in conversation. He fell out with most of us. After he got what he wanted (Brexit), he wasn't happy with only being able to spend 3 months in Europe... so then he got his Greek passport. D*ck.
They see pressure on local services - schools, doctors - and blame the immigrants rather than the lack of investment in services.
Two separate people were saying that the other day... blaming immigrants and people who don't work for lack of funding. Yet one of them hasn't declared her rental income for at least 7 years; and the other is now letting properties out with 'no deposit' so that nobody can find out that they are let.
So potentially, immigrants could be paying more into the system... but the landlords don't want HMRC to have any of it. Hilarious.
Spain trains too many nurses - their surplus used to come here. Post brexit we are taking nurses from developing nations where there is a shortage. In a previous drive to recruit overseas nurses one of the carribean counties had to lose its ICU because we stole all the staff.
This is part of the tragedy of Brexit.
Yup, there are other examples of that. Many workers came from the EU who weren't necessarily going to settle here forever, but they were young and boosted the workforce (and economy). Many left after an overwhelming majority made their feelings clear about foreigners... so now we need immigrants from elsewhere.
The Brexiteers voted - now they have even more brown people!! 🤣🤣
On the subject of nurses (you'd have to fact check this) - I was speaking to someone who was telling me that because of where many are recruited from, they had to pay something like £3k to renew their visa after two years. Unsurprisingly, many leave. 🤷♂️
I think part of the problem is that prejudice and racism has been less frowned upon or discouraged and indeed more normalised in recent years. It seems lots of people seem emboldened by this.
I have faced increased racism since the Brexit referendum. In my experience - I have witnessed more prejudiced comments openly expressed for the last 9 years. Prior to this - I haven’t experienced open racism since the 1980’s.
I'm not trying to excuse this but could the cause of this be the absolutely massive increase in immigration since the brexit vote, combined with the fact that a lot of people voted for it to expressly reduce immigration? They have also voted for parties who explicitly said they would reduce migration since 2012. They've been repeatedly lied to and ignored, whilst the same politicians blame immigrants for some of their problems. Has any successful party run on explicit promise to increase immigration in the last 40 years?
There's also the issue that people generally don't like change and the ethnic mix of the UK has changed noticeably, which is hardly surprising with the white British population dropping from 87.5% in 2001 to 74.4% in 2021. The recent numbers will have pushed this lower still.
but as an "Island State" 🤮 we confuse the whole issue because people need to come via continental countries to get here to claim (flying isn't an option, because we've shut that down). It's so bloody difficult (and dangerous) to get to the UK, t
Yet 700,000 managed it legally last year so it can’t be that hard to arrive legally as these people have shown
I was talking about asylum seekers. Who are you talking about?
Of course you can reach 'some people'. Certainly not all, but some. Those people are currently fed bullshit and they take it as read, feed them actual truth (regularly) and some people will take note of it.
Excellent. How's that working out for you?
Yet 700,000 managed it legally last year so it can’t be that hard to arrive legally as these people have shown
But the problem is 700,000 is a *lot* of people, and the UK just can't cope
The other problem is that those applying legally almost certainly don't _have_ to come, they have chosen to come. The people we really should be letting in are the ones who absolutely have to flee their homes for whatever reason, but I have no idea how easy it is for a Sudanese or a Somali or an Iraqi to apply for a visa before they set off to, but I'm guessing quite difficult, hence the vast majority of those we should be letting in are 'illegal' , whilst most of those arriving from countries with nothing to fear at home can do so legally. It's mad.
Ukraine is probably the exception, with large numbers of genuine refugees arriving legally.
And yet with 700,000 arrivals the government still goes out of its way to make it difficult for 1,500 ghurkas to come, what's another 1,500 but mostly those guys have definitely earned the right to come!
But the problem is 700,000 is a *lot* of people, and the UK just can't cope
As Kelvin alludes to, the UK saw 100,000 asylum seekers last year. That's about the same as the capacity at Wembley Stadium.
In what way aren't we coping? That's an easy claim to glibly make, can you evidence it?
The other problem is that those applying legally almost certainly don't _have_ to come, they have chosen to come.
Whilst this may be true to a degree, they have to go somewhere and we take in a relatively small number compared with other countries. There were figures posted by someone earlier in this thread. It's my understanding that the vast majority of asylum seekers settle in the first non-hostile country they reach, though I could be wrong here.
Ukraine is probably the exception, with large numbers of genuine refugees arriving legally.
Two things here:
1) Why is Ukraine an exception?
2) You should probably go learn the difference between "asylum seeker" and "refugee" (and for that matter, "immigrant") before commenting further.
In other news,
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France.
Why do you need an answer? They don’t have to seek asylum in France. If I was forced to flee the UK I’d go straight through France and ask for asylum in Spain. Why? Because I can communicate there and would fair much better if I had to work. Or I’d go to Latín America for the same reason and because I know people there. The motive is relevant only to me.
There's also the issue that people generally don't like change and the ethnic mix of the UK has changed noticeably, which is hardly surprising with the white British population dropping from 87.5% in 2001 to 74.4% in 2021
Why, amongst all the change we have experienced over the last 20 years, is it that people get so worked up about the colour of the skin of the people they see around them? Isn’t that another way of saying that the issue is that people don’t like immigration because they are racist?
I have no idea how easy it is for a Sudanese or a Somali or an Iraqi to apply for a visa before they set off
Two things:
a.If fleeing from oppression or persecution as asylum seekers and refugees are, they do not have the luxury or ability to wait whilst embassy staff process the paperwork and issue a visa. After 15 years of cut-backs there are not enough staff.
b.The desperate arrive without paperwork because UK has no system for processing off-shore in another country.
The government's problems are of the govenrment's making based on a choice to deflect concern about funding things properly in the country onto refugees and asylum seekers. They are despicable and need calling on it every time.
Isn’t that another way of saying that the issue is that people don’t like immigration because they are racist?
This is why there'll never be a constructive discussion about the issue, at least not on this forum. Because no matter how an argument is framed someone will inevitably pull out the racism card.
It's it really racist to voice your concerns about feeling more and more isolated in and less connected to the area you've lived all your life? Are we saying the concerns of these people don't need attention?
In what way aren't we coping?
I'd say the way the UK isn't coping is in accepting that number and falling prey to racist populist BS. And so far from this thread, nobody is putting anything forward that's going to counter act that successfully in the short to mid term, quite probably long term too. (IMO)
STW is really outlier in the conversations I see on this topic with increasingly open and hostile to immigration voices most other places with decreasing or no longer visible push back.
I think the thing that stands out from STW is the focus on what is morally right, or what is viewed necessary for the function of the country as if that by itself is somehow "enough" to sway the argument, which is possibly why it's so hard to push back against anti immigration sentiment as those factors are seemingly very easy for people to either ignore or dismiss with "alternative ethics and views on what necessary".
There's also the issue that people generally don't like change and the ethnic mix of the UK has changed noticeably, which is hardly surprising with the white British population dropping from 87.5% in 2001 to 74.4% in 2021
Why, amongst all the change we have experienced over the last 20 years, is it that people get so worked up about the colour of the skin of the people they see around them? Isn’t that another way of saying that the issue is that people don’t like immigration because they are racist?
Whilst it may be racist it's a very easy way to tell people are different from you. They are likely to have a different culture and ethics/beliefs. It's basically been this way throughout the entirety of human history and people appear to not like it when their culture is challenged.
Two separate people were saying that the other day... blaming immigrants and people who don't work for lack of funding. Yet one of them hasn't declared her rental income for at least 7 years; and the other is now letting properties out with 'no deposit' so that nobody can find out that they are let.
See also anyone who 'prefers' being paid in cash.
Why, amongst all the change we have experienced over the last 20 years, is it that people get so worked up about the colour of the skin of the people they see around them? Isn’t that another way of saying that the issue is that people don’t like immigration because they are racist?
I could be wrong and not seeing all the crossover between entitlement and racism, but thinking of the people who say "I'm not racist, but..." who may not be openly racist on a one-to-one personal level - to them it may be about fear of change and loss of what they see as their culture or normality. That's why the far right will use replacement theory to drive support. It's something you can see around you .. 'so it must be true'.
This is why when it comes to the nationalist/flag-lover/anti-immigration crowd, simply accusing people of being racists puts up a barrier than can make the accuser look as blinkered as the accused. It's more about entitlement - in many people's minds racism is more blunt, it's offensive jokes and obvious discrimination whereas them wanting to maintain things as they are (or were) isn't racist, it's a sort of defensive way of thinking. .. which all has some roots in or links to racism oc, entitlement is protecting your own interests as white British, but to them it's not the primary factor or driver of it?
Basically, this -
This is why there'll never be a constructive discussion about the issue, at least not on this forum. Because no matter how an argument is framed someone will inevitably pull out the racism card.
It's it really racist to voice your concerns about feeling more and more isolated in and less connected to the area you've lived all your life? Are we saying the concerns of these people don't need attention?
Is being anti-immigration because of fear for your own culture 'racist'? It can be, but I can see how it isn't as simple as that, or how my sense of British cultural identity (which is fairly weak for a number of reasons) leads me to see all this differently to someone who has a strong sense of 'traditional British'* identity.
*I'm not sure what that that actually is, something from the 20s to 50s? And the fact it's not like that now is part of this point I suppose.
entitlement is protecting your own interests as white British
Which means, presumably, if that person met two random strangers (one white British, one not), they'd feel more of an urge to be friendly to the white British one?
Isn't that quite close to a definition of racial prejudice aka racism?
So there are zero valid negatives/risks associated with ever increasing immigration/asylum numbers then?
You're just a racist?
Let's see how that plays out for the next few years.
Which means, presumably, if that person met two random strangers (one white British, one not), they'd feel more of an urge to be friendly to the white British one?
It might. And it's natural to find it easier to be friendly with people you have more in common with. What I'm thinking of is how some people have a genuinely -or seemingly- open, warm attitude to anyone on a personal level but they may still want that traditional view of England. Ability to have personal empathy but not wider cultural empathy? It's a bit of a strawman case made for my own understanding of this whole thing, bc I know if I was to accuse some anti-immigration people of being racist the discussion goes nowhere. As I said, may be wrong.
The attraction of the UK over France has been asked.
Language
Current ethnic mix of the UK making integration easier for most and very easy for some origins - I doubt you'll find many immigrants in Camarthen unless you include English new age settlers
The UK's thriving black as in non-declared economy
When I do meet migrants/asylum seekers in France they often speak French and many come from French speaking parts of Africa which already have communites in France, those that don't speak at least some English. Turks, Syrians and Vietnamese go to Germany. Italy funds libya in the same way as Britain funds France to limit migration. Jews go to Israel. Brits go all over the place because you can get by pretty much anywhere in English.
Immigration is down to push and pull. When people are pushed they go to places that pull them. My street must have a lot of pull, it's not long and there are English, Dutch, South Korean, Turkish, Spanish, Portugese
So there are zero valid negatives/risks associated with ever increasing immigration/asylum numbers then?
No, I wouldn't say that myself. I'm talking about the way the topic gets distorted or hijacked by a more dangerous mentality, so any negatives or risks can become wider risks to a society.
Mass movement of people will only increase in the future - if not from geo-political causes then from potential climate causes. So whether we like it or not, a humanitarian view of it is how to cope with it best and what we need to accept or adapt to, to accommodate what some people need. That's simplistic and isn't getting into abuses of systems and practicalities, but personally at the basic level I'd adapt to change myself rather than see the alternatives play out as far as they might. I suppose the difference between me with that view and those throwing stuff through hotel windows is what we see as the likely changes. Back to the distortion and hijack points, which work both ways - the left sees a multi-cultural utopian peace, the right sees replacement or race war, both are distorted.
I think my main concern in all this is social media or the way information is controlled or driven by algorithms, plus human nature, means it will be a mess. A fair, empathetic view of all this has little chance.
Which means, presumably, if that person met two random strangers (one white British, one not), they'd feel more of an urge to be friendly to the white British one?
That's an exceptionally long stretch. An individual can want to protect what they feel is their culture and heritage without the need to exclude people with a different cuture and heritage. Not all Venn diagrams have to overlap.
Isn’t that another way of saying that the issue is that people don’t like immigration because they are racist?
This is why there'll never be a constructive discussion about the issue, at least not on this forum. Because no matter how an argument is framed someone will inevitably pull out the racism card.
It's it really racist to voice your concerns about feeling more and more isolated in and less connected to the area you've lived all your life? Are we saying the concerns of these people don't need attention?
It’s not a ‘racism card’… the way the explanation was framed is that people don’t like immigration because the proportion of white people in the UK is decreasing. Whilst there may be all kinds of issues associated with immigration, and reasons to be concerned about the levels of immigration (or lack of proportionate service provision), if the reason that people don’t like immigration is because it changes the ‘ethnic makeup’ of the UK then that sounds like racism to me.
This is why there'll never be a constructive discussion about the issue, at least not on this forum. Because no matter how an argument is framed someone will inevitably pull out the racism card.
I actually think this discussion is going well with very little use of racism card. I am happy to talk about whether we need immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees as none of my thoughts are based on race but simply the countries need. i.e. what is the country getting back from the person choosing to live here, what is the person adding. If the country is getting little to nothing back then I don't think that person should be here.
Yes, there are loads of people already in the country who would fail that test but not much can be done about that, clearly.
Out of the current discussion but on topic BBC article posted yesterday on empty homes. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3r413l5n57o
So there are zero valid negatives/risks associated with ever increasing immigration/asylum numbers then?
You're just a racist?
Let's see how that plays out for the next few years.
Not sure who that reply is to, but if it was to my last comment it is so far wide of the mark it is funny.
Clearly there has to be a point where there are too many people. If you want to be all logical about it, you'd say that could be the point where there is no room to stand on the landmass. In reality, of course, it will tend towards public services as they're the things that we try to run on a shoestring. Up to this point we are all friends.
But that is not what is being played out in Epping. If that hotel had been used to house (for example) white male Ukrainian refugees, there may have been some pushback, but nowhere near the extent there has been and nowhere near as flag-wavey.
Someone posed the question above about welcoming Ukrainian refugees over Sudanese. The better comparison would be with Afghan refugees. We had an active role in Afghanistan and then we walked away in the full knowledge that the Taliban would walk straight back in. Where was the "give an Afghan refugee a home in your house" campaign? In fact, many of those brought over because they were directly at risk having assisted coalition forces are still in military facilities and there was substantial pushback in Manchester (I think) about re-homing some of them there.
One other quick thing:
When someone is polite to individuals on a direct basis, but still likes a sense of English cultural identity, the lines are more blurry and this is where Teresa May placed herself with 'citizens of nowhere'. It is hard to remember, but there was quite a strong drive in the 60s through to the 80s that cultural homogenisation was a good thing - a sign of progress. You can debate that until the cows come home. But some of the cultures that are now often held up a niche and worthy of preservation (think of the Saami) are also fiercely 'nationalistic' and would be a problem if there were simply more of them to be a real problem.
Which means, presumably, if that person met two random strangers (one white British, one not), they'd feel more of an urge to be friendly to the white British one?
Isn't that quite close to a definition of racial prejudice aka racism?
Not at all. Faced with the above situation I would almost certainly gravitate towards the non-white foreigner, using your logic that would make an anti-white racist, which I am not.
And btw the reason that I would strongly gravitate towards the non-white foreign random stranger is quite simply because I would expect to find their story more interesting and less predictable.
I find other people's cultures, traditions, and religions, deeply interesting. I spent yesterday evening with my Hindu Indian friend who returned from a 3 week holiday in India on Monday, she showed me photos she had taken of the place where Krishna was born, apparently. I wasn't quite sure what she was talking about but it was certainly more interesting than seeing photos of my mate's recent stay at the caravan site on the Isle of Sheppey.
Some people have zero interest in other people's cultures and traditions, it doesn't in any way make them racist. Otherwise we will be accusing anyone who doesn't want to go on foreign holidays of being racist.
And another quick thing (apols)...
Housebuilding - specifically that being done on greenbelt or farmland. This is used a lot on a local level to justify the narrative that "we're full".
What this actually is, is the folk who make an awful lot of money out of housebuilding scrambling for their payday before it becomes apparent that (in the next 10 years or so) there are huge brownfield sites coming available. If you think the high street is dead, wait until you see what is going to happen to out of town retail parks. And also business parks with people increasingly able to work from home. These sites, though, are more difficult to build on as they need deep-seated infrastructure digging out in many cases. They are also likely to be less desirable to live in than the edge of a leafy village, so will command less of a price. The builders/speculators can see this coming. They want their payday now so they can retire to a big house in the countryside, with a big wall around their own personal greenbelt that no one else is allowed to live on.
🤬
If the country is getting little to nothing back then I don't think that person should be here.
That can be a valid test, but not the only test. Perhaps you meant immigration where this topic's into immigration as well as asylum, but help for people who are seeking asylum because of a country's low human rights is one other reason for them to be here. Also I think a country has a responsibility for the impact it has overseas. Past colonialism, current foreign policy and conflict etc, above average national wealth per person may be because of that and goes with an above average liability to use some of that wealth in aid of displaced people (and being open to immigration). Not like it's 'an OK cost of being richer' .. ideally not create those situations but it's where we are.
It's it really racist to voice your concerns about feeling more and more isolated in and less connected to the area you've lived all your life?
The ethnic mix in communities is only one of many changing factors in people feeling more isolated and less connected. Visiting my mother the houses remain but the rest has changed and it's not a few black or asian faces that have made the biggest difference, it's the way people live and their attitudes. They live in the house, walk no further than the car, get in and then drive off. They don't talk to each other. I walked everywhere and said hello to the mostly dog walkers I met. Most people in cars were horrible to me, there were no zebra crossings but they refused to let me cross and when I did nip through the continuous stream of cars some made gestures of irritation - it was really nice if one slowed and smiled. In shops I mostly got the scripted "have you got card X", "have you...". The (white) people in the local shop were positively hostile and in bad faith when I returned a stinking jar of olives bought minutes earlier. Boots was a nice experience, helpful and chatty.
I asked my mother if she had any neighbours she knew/could contact/rely on if she had a problem. One possible (asian). In the 70s in the same street the kids walked (or biked) to school, everyone knew who the neighbours were and most were willing to help each other out. So yes my mother feels more isolated and less connected but it has nothing to do with immigration, on the contrary.
OK, but that's anecdotal specifically in your mother's case. I've got anecdotal evidence of the opposite.
I live in an overwhelmingly white area, although it is a very varied place in terms of where folk were born - lots of "migrants" from within the UK. Roughly 700 people in the village with (afaik) a couple of US households, one south asian household, one east asian household and a multiple ethnicity household. Almost everyone knows almost everyone else, everyone has time for a chat, and I can count on any number of people to have my back in an emergency, e.g. childcare at short notice.
My Nan lived her entire life in Tinsley, Sheffield. When she was growing up she knew everyone to the point she could have invited herself in for a cup of tea to any of 20+ houses either side of hers. By the time she died she knew the immediate next door neighbours either side (one white British, one white Italian) and the ****stani family that ran the Spar across the road. In that time the demographics went from white British being the overwhelming majority to BAME being the majority. Certainly some of the blame for her increasing isolation from the community could be put at her feet for not attempting to integrate more, but by the same token not a single family that moved in, apart from the aforementioned neighbours, attempted any kind of contact with my Nan. I can't claim to know the reasons why/why not, but it's possible that the "racist' lack of desire to mix with "others" was/is present in those families that moved into the area. It's not one-sided.
The vast majority who have moved into my mother's street are white. And it's not just that they don't talk to mother, they don't talk to each other either . it's not:
the "racist' lack of desire to mix with "others" was/is present in those families that moved into the area.
it's just that people don't mix with their neighbours anymore in south Brum and apparently in Sheffield either. That's two anecdotes to support my view that it's changing attitudes and lifestyle more than immigration that's isolating people.
...it's the way people live and their attitudes. They live in the house, walk no further than the car, get in and then drive off. They don't talk to each other.
There's a point made about us all coping well and living so-operatively in smaller communities, less so in larger communities - I think ~500 people total was the general tipping point and we'll gravitate toward groups of less than that. Yet our society sprawls and online/social media may be adding to the feeling that it's larger still.
Visiting my mother the houses remain but the rest has changed and it's not a few black or asian faces that have made the biggest difference, it's the way people live and their attitudes. They live in the house, walk no further than the car, get in and then drive off. They don't talk to each other.
Found exactly the same visiting my sister's town (NW England) with next to no immigration. There's so little in the way of social interaction, town of almost 10k barely supporting 3 pubs, forget libraries or anything like that. A few hundred at the football/league. Maybe my judgement is coloured by living in EU but it feels more insular every time I visit (every two years or so).
And yet people there get do together: One Saturday each month to protest against the building of a mosque on the site of an old petrol station. The diluting of British culture, they say.
In what way aren't we coping? That's an easy claim to glibly make, can you evidence it?
Well, we aren't building 700,00 new houses a year for a start. Or anywhere like enough to keep up with population growth generally.
1) Why is Ukraine an exception?
In the sense that the government actually managed to put in place a scheme to bring refugees here. That is the exception, they did not with Libya, Somalia, Iraq, etc. They've even gone out of their way to stop Afghans who worked for the British Army coming, which is a disgrace.
The point I'm making is that if we agree that we can accept x number of people every year, then we should be prioritising those fleeing wars or persecution or whatever, rather than those coming from other European countries who just fancy moving somewhere a bit wealthier.
My counterpoint is that the vast majority of people who have moved into the village I live in (me included) are white and speak to everyone else in the village, and the vast majority of people who moved in to my Nan's street weren't and didn't appear to.
The glaringly obvious, and presumably racist, difference in my anecdotes is the demographics of the people who moved in. But again, not all Venn diagrams need to overlap. It's likely just a case of people "sticking to their own", either consciously or otherwise, out of a feeling of "comfort with familiarity". It seems like that's only an issue when native white British do it though. Attempts to question why people from other demographics act exactly the same aren't taken kindly.
And I'm aware that by writing these things I'm probably coming across as some closet flag-shagger. I promise you that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Like ernielynch the greater the perceived difference between the person and myself the more interested I am in their story. I'm not going to shun anyone based on where they came from or where they choose to live, it's all cool. I'm going to shun them if they're a dick about whatever they choose to do while they're there.
I have no idea how easy it is for a Sudanese or a Somali or an Iraqi to apply for a visa before they set off
Two things:
a.If fleeing from oppression or persecution as asylum seekers and refugees are, they do not have the luxury or ability to wait whilst embassy staff process the paperwork and issue a visa. After 15 years of cut-backs there are not enough staff.
b.The desperate arrive without paperwork because UK has no system for processing off-shore in another country.
Which was my point. The people who genuinely need to come here to escape something at home are the most likely to arrive here illegally, and yet they are the ones being vilified for some reason. Generally those who have the luxury of being able to come legally are not in fear of their lives and yet those are ones we are welcoming. It is back to front
The vast majority who've arrived in recent years haven't come from either war zones or Europe, andrewh. India topped a table I saw for 2021IIRC and it's neighbour that breaks the swear filter was top of asylum demands more recently.
Did you see what Farage is promising? First £25,000 of earnings tax free for one partner in married couples. Part of a drive to increase British babies, to balance out their planned drastic reduction of immigrants. That would make a big difference to low earners such as myself. Provided it's not tax free for the lowest earner, as that would be my self-employed partner. Oh wait I'm currently unemployed. Tax free on benefits then, I might win that one. Whoop.
Did you see what Farage is promising? First £25,000 of earnings tax free for one partner in married couples
Has anyone got some kind of totaliser for how much the man-frogs promises are going to cost? We must be up to a few hundred billion a year by now? All while delivering huge tax cuts?
He must have found a whole Forest of magic money trees.
We must be up to a few hundred billion a year by now?
Well, with all that extra cash saved through Brexit that's hardly a concern...
Isn’t that another way of saying that the issue is that people don’t like immigration because they are racist?
This is why there'll never be a constructive discussion about the issue, at least not on this forum. Because no matter how an argument is framed someone will inevitably pull out the racism card.
It's it really racist to voice your concerns about feeling more and more isolated in and less connected to the area you've lived all your life? Are we saying the concerns of these people don't need attention?
It’s not a ‘racism card’… the way the explanation was framed is that people don’t like immigration because the proportion of white people in the UK is decreasing. Whilst there may be all kinds of issues associated with immigration, and reasons to be concerned about the levels of immigration (or lack of proportionate service provision), if the reason that people don’t like immigration is because it changes the ‘ethnic makeup’ of the UK then that sounds like racism to me.
I deliberately picked white British rather than just white as Eastern Europeans are definitely white, but plenty were still against that immigration because they're still "different". It seems to be more about the general differences rather than any specific racial trait, to the point that it appears rare for them to have problems with individuals or families, but only when an area changes noticeably.
As much as I hate the "Bollocked faced foghorn of ignorance" he's not wrong about everything. I think we actually do need to do more to encourage families in the UK. Highest childcare cost in Europe, limited benefits for families and middling maternity support.
The only country in Europe with a average female fertility rate above 2 is Hungary and they provide lots of support to mothers and families in general.
1) Why is Ukraine an exception?
I think the reason they're an exception is the belief that it's only temporary they'll return home to rebuild their country once the war is over. That doesn't appear to be the case for any other group of refugees as Britain offers far more prospects than their homelands.
The glaringly obvious, and presumably racist, difference in my anecdotes is the demographics of the people who moved in. But again, not all Venn diagrams need to overlap. It's likely just a case of people "sticking to their own"
When my kids started primary school in south Manchester 16 years ago there was a very stark divide between the middle class white mums/dads (mostly mums TBF) and the asian mums. The school was only about 20% white and had kids from 20 nationalities attending, yet the PTA consisted of pretty much 100% white, mostly middle class women. At the same time there was a regular coffee morning which was attended by almost 100% asian women. My Mrs got involved in the PTA and she and a mate decided to do something about it so went to the coffee morning and started talking to the Asian mums and asked why they didn't get involved in the PTA. The answer was mainly that they had never been asked and didn't feel welcome and the rest of the white PTA members said they assumed the Asian mums weren't interested. Fast forward a few years and that PTA was chaired by one of the same Asian women who my Mrs approached and she went on to become the first Asian school governer. Who knew that talking to people and getting to know them is the secret to breaking down artificial social barriers?
the vast majority of people who moved in to my Nan's street weren't and didn't appear to.
Maybe you nan should go knock on their doors and introduce herself?
Just overhearing a work conversation my wife is having.
An unreported and unappreciated thing about immigrants working in the NHS is this:
Immigrants, especially those who are training, are less likely to have dependents with them in the UK. A side effect of this is that a disproportionate amount of antisocial and out of hours shifts are done by these people. Sure, NHS trusts have done various things over the years to address skills shortages during these shifts, but on the whole, this still remains the case.
Immigrants workers in the NHS are also more likely to be accommodated in hospital bedrooms (what would previously have been more the preserve of student nurses etc). So, again, they are more likely to do antisocial hours as they are living closer to the workplace.
Whether all this fair or not is another matter. But less immigrants working in the NHS, the more nights UK born staff would have to be away from home.
Great example Dazh. "Go first, be positive" - seems like great life advice to me (I need to do more of that, the social 'going first' bit)
When inclusion in cycling came up often a couple of years back there was plenty of good stuff about how the best thing is for the dominant or main group to go first towards the smaller group - proactively invite and welcome those on the outside in rather than expect outsiders to come to the group asking. Perhaps too much of UK culture expects newcomers to integrate while the newcomers are waiting to be invited in. Seems right that it feels nicer to be invited than to have to ask - at work, socially, culturally.
We need to be careful with the NHS staffing point. It's all true, and I agree, but... in the short term there are currently lots of recruitment freezes going on (some of that is down to recent pay rises, some to do with reorganisation), so lots of people are going to be finishing their education and not finding places quickly/easily in the NHS. We absolutely still need trained staff to come here, but you're about to hear lots of anecdotes about newly trained UK staff not being able to get jobs, and that being misattributed to immigrants working in the NHS. Just watch out for that.
The only country in Europe with a average female fertility rate above 2 is Hungary and they provide lots of support to mothers and families in general.
Not so, it's currently 1.38 and the last time it was above 2 was 1979. Hungary has had long term cost of living problem and throwing money at childcare has done very little to change that. The Hungarian government is known for its "child care propaganda" but the aid is highly selective concerning only heterosexual married high earning couples.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Hungary_TFR.tab
Ugh, never read the comments in a community Facebook post about a local councillor joining Reform. Would rather not see migrants crossing the channel described as "animals".
Guess the admins of that group will be getting a lot of reports
Maybe you nan should go knock on their doors and introduce herself?
If you'd fully read my post you'd see that was half my point. She didn't do that where perhaps she should have. But the onus shouldn't only be on the famously mobile septuagenarian demographic to be walking around the community introducing themselves. Any suggestions why none of the incomers knocked on her door?
Any suggestions why none of the incomers knocked on her door?
There's six pages of suggestions right here.
If you'd just fled a warzone, been temporary placed in a shit hotel with an angry mob outside who'd rather see it empty than have you in it, then moved to an established community of flag-shaggers where the lead story on most newspapers is how welcome you aren't, do you suppose the first thing you'd do is go knocking door-to-door to make sure everyone knows where you live?
If you'd fully read my post you'd see that was half my point.
If you'd fully read daz's post you'd see that was only half of his. It takes two people to not talk to each other.
Yeah but if I already made a point, it's seems odd that someone else quotes my post and makes the same point as if I didn't. I was just making sure dazh is aware I'm not looking at this from just one side.
There's six pages of suggestions right here.
If you'd just fled a warzone, been temporary placed in a shit hotel with an angry mob outside who'd rather see it empty than have you in it, then moved to an established community of flag-shaggers...
is relevant to current affairs, not to the economic migrants moving to and buying houses in an area of Sheffield during the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
... a time in our history when, of course, overt racism was famously unheard of and having darkies moving in next door was considered cause for celebration.
The drivers for migration may have evolved over the years, but we've been resentful of it for as long as I can remember. If you make it very clear that people aren't welcome then it shouldn't come as a massive shock to you when they don't feel welcome.
I've just been perma-banned from r/uk personal finance.
I'm not going to share what I said in reply to the below, I'll leave that to your imagination.
What I will say, is, it's not people in boats causing the cost of living crisis...
It's not people earning £80-100k and wondering about child benefit either.
If you make it very clear that people aren't welcome then it shouldn't come as a massive shock to you when they don't feel welcome.
And this comes back to my original point. Sure, some white British have made it clear that others aren't welcome. But what about the other way round? The ones that I'm assuming kerley and others have alluded to as not being willing to integrate. Two sides of the same coin, but only half the coin is racist.
There has been a missing man around our local area for the last week. Sadly a body has now been found and his family informed. The man in question was in his 40s but had learning difficulties and he was also of Muslim heritage.
Had this happened pre-2016 I would have estimated that less than 0.5% of the comments on FB would have been out of order. I would also think the person/people responsible would be at least spoken to. Fast forward to 2025 and I would say 2-3% of the comments are bang out of order. The various village/town/police groups were taking down offensive ones, but not quick enough to stop some being visible to the casual observer. I would reckon the ones stupid enough to post on a police page might get a message back, but the rest won't.
This is pretty much solely due to the legitimisation of these views that have been pandered to (leading or following) by our politicians and it started in earnest with the Leave campaign of 2016. The number of people now willing to post this stuff is because of a feeling of safety in numbers and a creeping normalisation of prejudiced views. All the way from a poster and odd comment in 2016 to Reform being ahead in the polls. Same faces at the helm, ratcheting up the prejudice and calling it 'legitimate concerns'.
Anyone with an objective view of politics of the last decade knows how we got here and what the catalyst was.
Two sides of the same coin, but only half the coin is racist.
Was your gran discriminated, harassed or disadvantaged due to her race? No she wasn’t, so she wasn’t the victim of racism.
There has been a missing man around our local area for the last week. Sadly a body has now been found and his family informed. The man in question was in his 40s but had learning difficulties and he was also of Muslim heritage.
Had this happened pre-2016 I would have estimated that less than 0.5% of the comments on FB would have been out of order. I would also think the person/people responsible would be at least spoken to. Fast forward to 2025 and I would say 2-3% of the comments are bang out of order. The various village/town/police groups were taking down offensive ones, but not quick enough to stop some being visible to the casual observer. I would reckon the ones stupid enough to post on a police page might get a message back, but the rest won't.
This is pretty much solely due to the legitimisation of these views that have been pandered to (leading or following) by our politicians and it started in earnest with the Leave campaign of 2016. The number of people now willing to post this stuff is because of a feeling of safety in numbers and a creeping normalisation of prejudiced views. All the way from a poster and odd comment in 2016 to Reform being ahead in the polls. Same faces at the helm, ratcheting up the prejudice and calling it 'legitimate concerns'.
Anyone with an objective view of politics of the last decade knows how we got here and what the catalyst was.
I couldn't agree more. But there is also another 'element' that has contributed to this.
The absolute fumble successive governments have made of quite hot topics around race.
The group-based sexual exploitation issue being one prime example. The absolutely dog shit attempt at gaslighting the public, the subsequent report essentially validating what people already thought has given racists another reason to bang their drum and groups like Reform and all their associated ilk a political gift.
Even in the face of the Casey review some are still trying to downplay it's significance as if that is going to somehow mean the racists will shrug their shoulders and go 'oh, we were wrong'.
The next petrol bomb to the fire at some point in the future likely will be the outcome from Labours islamaphobia redefinition consultation. Done behind closed doors, with no transparency. I mean what negative attention could that possibly bring?
It's like the point you made earlier in the thread in how they should the PM should have addressed the flag issue, but instead they seem to choose this dismissive, or downright avoidant approach that is petrol to an already out of control fire.
Was your gran discriminated, harassed or disadvantaged due to her race? No she wasn’t, so she wasn’t the victim of racism.
There's a strong argument that because some white people may have made the migrants feel unwelcome that they decided to exclude all white people from their interactions. I imagine if a white person did that to a different ethic group they'd be called racist.
This is my whole point. There's no separation in a lot of people's minds between genuine concerns and flag-shagging xenophobia. White people just need to sit down, shut up and integrate when demographics change, and if they question why it's a prelude to the usual "racism" conversation ender. Other groups get a pass because to question why they don't integrate is a prelude to the usual "racism" conversation ender.
White people just need to sit down, shut up and integrate when demographics change, and if they question why it's a prelude to the usual "racism" conversation ender
I think it extraordinarily difficult to argue that white people in the UK can be the victims of racism in anything vaguely approaching the same way as black and brown can be.
As a white person living in a very multicultural area, and someone who very often finds themselves in situations where I am very much an ethnic minority, quite often in a minority of just one, I can assure you that I very rarely if ever feel like a victim of racism.
I have absolutely no doubt that if I was black my experience of racism in the UK would have been very different. And I am equally sure that I wouldn't have had to rely on the experiences of "my gran" to make the point.
This ridiculous claim that all people can experience an equal level of racism in the UK is totally absurd, but it is shamefully used by white supremacists, and also zionists, and is currently being successfully used to drive out Diane Abbott, a woman who has faced racism on a daily basis throughout her life, out of the Labour Party.
Because they are a bit thick and easily led.
/thread
(with reference to the title)
And I am equally sure that I wouldn't have had to rely on the experiences of "my gran" to make the point.
It's a fairly standard technique when having a conversation, using examples to allow others to empathise with a point you're making.
But I understand now. Only first hand account are allowed, and your experience is applicable to all white people.
Got it 👍🏼
White people just need to sit down, shut up and integrate when demographics change, and if they question why it's a prelude to the usual "racism" conversation ender
I think it extraordinarily difficult to argue that white people in the UK can be the victims of racism in anything vaguely approaching the same way as black and brown can be.
As a white person living in a very multicultural area, and someone who very often finds themselves in situations where I am very much an ethnic minority, quite often in a minority of just one, I can assure you that I very rarely if ever feel like a victim of racism.
I have absolutely no doubt that if I was black my experience of racism in the UK would have been very different. And I am equally sure that I wouldn't have had to rely on the experiences of "my gran" to make the point.
This ridiculous claim that all people can experience an equal level of racism in the UK is totally absurd, but it is shamefully used by white supremacists, and also zionists, and is currently being successfully used to drive out Diane Abbott, a woman who has faced racism on a daily basis throughout her life, out of the Labour Party.
Agreed
I used to live in a country where the vast majority of people were black. I am white (although with dark skin and a black beard I often got mistaken for a Latino). I used to get occasional aggressive interactions from black locals who made reference to my colour or mistook me for an American. I didn’t feel like or consider that I was the victim of racism and I don’t think I would draw parallels with racism or discrimination shown to people of colour here in the UK.
Why, because there is a power relationship at play, a whole history of discrimination and exploitation and because for every difficult interaction I experienced myriad interactions where I was favoured and received better treatment because I was white. My experience was fundamentally different to that of black and Asian people in the UK.
Interestingly, when living in Latin America, beyond the odd gringo comment (the sentiment implied with the term can vary from pejorative to endearment with most usage falling around neutral) I never once got any hassle for being an immigrant. Unfortunately, in the Dominican Republic, other non white immigrants did experience discrimination. I know the term is hated and is even becoming toxic, but white privilege is very much real.
Sorry, double post
This ridiculous claim that all people can experience an equal level of racism in the UK
Please find that statement in this thread. Specifically the equal level part.
Sure, some white British have made it clear that others aren't welcome. But what about the other way round? The ones that I'm assuming kerley and others have alluded to as not being willing to integrate. Two sides of the same coin, but only half the coin is racist.
What about it?
Your argument only works if there is parity, if both parties are equitable. This is not the case. When did you last hear of someone being beaten up or worse for the crime of being white? The last white person I remember being killed for looking different was Sophie Lancaster (and that was by a group of white kids). How often do you see Islam First barricade themselves outside a hotel full of white people, waving hysterical placards which scream "save our children!"
Does it work the other way around? Of course it does, regular readers will recall that I spent most of my life living in an area where being white was increasingly the ethnic minority so I've experienced both sides of your coin first hand. I've seen racist behaviour from Asians and it is exactly that - racism - and should be called out as such. But they're statistically insignificant incidents compared to the constant, often coordinated vitriol running in the opposite direction.
There's no separation in a lot of people's minds between genuine concerns and flag-shagging xenophobia.
Define "genuine concerns." Do you mean concerns which are genuine to those concerned, or concerns which actually have some sort validity in reality? There was a caller on LBC the other week who rang in to complain about all the free cars the asylum seekers were being given, would you consider that a genuine concern? It was genuine enough to her that she felt the need to phone in to a national radio station about it.
White people just need to sit down, shut up and integrate when demographics change, and if they question why it's a prelude to the usual "racism" conversation ender. Other groups get a pass because to question why they don't integrate is a prelude to the usual "racism" conversation ender.
This is nonsense, no-one is saying this. I don't know what else to add here, sorry. Another "genuine concern" perhaps?"
And I am equally sure that I wouldn't have had to rely on the experiences of "my gran" to make the point.
It's a fairly standard technique when having a conversation, using examples to allow others to empathise with a point you're making.
But I understand now. Only first hand account are allowed, and your experience is applicable to all white people.
Got it 👍🏼
I am of course assuming that you are of similar ethnicity as your gran, ie white British, so why use the example of your your gran?
After all a black or brown person in the UK is unlikely to need to use the example of their grandparents to provide examples of unacceptable behaviour towards black and brown people.
As kilo has pointed out, your gran wasn't discriminated, harassed or disadvantaged, at least not from what you say.
This ridiculous claim that all people can experience an equal level of racism in the UK
Please find that statement in this thread. Specifically the equal level part.
Maybe read more carefully and fully what I wrote and what it was in response to ?
The very first paragraph of my post :
I think it extraordinarily difficult to argue that white people in the UK can be the victims of racism in anything vaguely approaching the same way as black and brown can be.
So I am referring to "anything vaguely approaching the same way as black and brown" are treated. And it was in response to this comment by TheFlyingOx:
Two sides of the same coin, but only half the coin is racist.
His gran's experience does represent one of the two sides of the same coin. It is not even vaguely approaching the same thing as the racism that black and brown people experience.
Any reasonable person can see that but this sort of shite is still used by white supremacists to claim that they are the victims of anti-white racism, and by zionists who claim that Jews in the UK experience the same or similar levels of racism as a black woman such as Diane Abbott.
It is precisely this sort of nonsensical bollocks which is being used to kick Diane Abbott out of the Labour Party.
How often do you see Islam First barricade themselves outside a hotel full of white people, waving hysterical placards which scream "save our children!"
I seem to remember pretty much exactly that on numerous occasions, just need to switch "hotel" for "school that dared to teach something that hardline muslims disagree with". See Batley, Birmingham, London, etc.
Genuine concerns are just that, and this thread is a shining example of why it's impossible to raise them. Any suggestion that anybody white is suffering in any way of leads to the kind of response seen on this thread. Whether it's dismissing the experience of "my Gran" (she was an actual person "Ernie", no need for the inverted commas) - I wasn't even claiming she was victim of racism, just giving a counterpoint to Edukator's mother's experience to show this lack of integration might not be for the reasons he gave. Deliberate use of one person's comically of-the-mark understanding of affairs (refugee car free-for-all) to suggest there's no such thing as a genuine concern - seems a bit Motte & Bailey to me. If I don't respond then its implied that your example is clearly what I was getting at. If I do respond then it was an extreme example and I'm a fool for taking it seriously. How about actual genuine concerns? I'm sure the parents of the aforementioned schools have some.
It's exactly what I meant when I said this place will never foster a serious discussion on the topic, because many of you are terrified of entertaining the idea that the rising tensions might not be entirely the fault of The White Brit.
Meanwhile, on Facebook:
Would these be considered "genuine concerns"?
His gran's experience does represent one of the two sides of the same coin. It is not even vaguely approaching the same thing as the racism that black and brown people experience.
Still potentially racist, and either way wherever it sits on the spectrum of minor to major it still has an impact on people and wider society.
"Two sides of the same coin" is very clearly suggesting a balanced equality. There is no evidence that FlyOx's gran was discriminated, harassed or disadvantaged, in the way that black and brown people the UK often are.
Yes Jews face racism in the UK, no it isn't the same as the racism that someone like Diane Abbott faces. Yes she is right to point it out. No Keir Starmer is wrong to remove the Labour whip for her saying so. HTH
I seem to remember pretty much exactly that on numerous occasions, just need to switch "hotel" for "school that dared to teach something that hardline muslims disagree with". See Batley, Birmingham, London, etc.
I had to refresh my memory on the Batley case. The hardline Muslims - a group calling itself the Muslim Action Forum - were accusing the school of blasphemy. Specifically, a lesson supposed to be about free speech used a depiction of Mohammed wearing a turban (no, me neither) and carrying a bomb. I wonder idly how the other side of that particular coin might look, how our proud white patriots would have reacted if a school was using Terrorist Jesus as a lesson example.
The Guardian concludes "That three years on [reported in 2024], the Batley teacher should still be in hiding is an indictment of our institutions and of their failure to robustly challenge intolerance, whether coming from Muslims or directed towards them. If there is one lesson we should learn from this mess, it is that opposing anti-Muslim bigotry and challenging restrictions on blasphemy necessarily go hand in hand."
The incident lead to the Khan Review - "Threats to Social Cohesion And Democratic Resilience: A New Strategic Approach" - and there's a comprehensive overview here should you want the Cliff Notes rather than reading all 150 pages of the report (I haven't).
Genuine concerns are just that,
That's a non-answer. "Genuine" is objective whereas "concern" is subjective. Would you consider vaccine hesitancy to be a genuine concern?
To paraphrase Dara O'Brian, "the threat of zombies is at an all-time low, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high."
and this thread is a shining example of why it's impossible to raise them.
Yet here you are, raising them. A dichotomy indeed.
People may not agree with you but that's hardly the same thing now, is it. Keep it honest.
Any suggestion that anybody white is suffering in any way of leads to the kind of response seen on this thread.
What leads to "the kind of response seen on this thread" is making sweeping claims about an entire demographic without a shred of evidence (eg, I had to go hunting for the Batley story based on what you "seem to remember," and London is not exactly the narrowest of search terms so I didn't bother looking any further). What leads to "the kind of response seen on this thread" is people waving Save Our Children" banners because out of the 100,000 per annum asylum seekers we're told are all middle-aged men, one of them turned out to be a sex offender.
Deliberate use of one person's comically of-the-mark understanding of affairs (refugee car free-for-all) to suggest there's no such thing as a genuine concern - seems a bit Motte & Bailey to me.
I don't know what you're implying by "deliberate" here, would you prefer I used examples by accident? I cited Angry Car Woman simply because it's the one I listened to most recently, I can probably dig out the link if you don't believe me. Or I'm sure there's plenty of other people making shit up to be concerned about should you care to look.
If I do respond then it was an extreme example and I'm a fool for taking it seriously.
Well, no. The sensible thing to do would be to take these ephemerally defined "concerns" seriously, look at them objectively and then act appropriately.
many of you are terrified of entertaining the idea that the rising tensions might not be entirely the fault of The White Brit.
Again, this is nonsense for reasons as already explained. Absolutely no-one is saying this, claiming that all immigrants / asylum seekers / brown people / Eastern Europeans / Muslims etc etc are all (to coin a phrase) whiter than white would be an absolutely ludicrous stance to take.
As for racism, I'm well aware of what that is having spent much of my younger years having to deal with it. Being mixed race growing up in the south of England and spending some time in the care system I know it intimately, not by some proxy association that you wear like badge of honour because some of your friends are {insert race here}.