Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron

Do you agree that the concept of 'miluiculturalism' has failed in the UK?

  • Absolutely

    Votes: 164 74.5%
  • Rather agree

    Votes: 27 12.3%
  • On some points yes, on some points no

    Votes: 20 9.1%
  • Multiculturalism has good prospects

    Votes: 5 2.3%
  • Multiculturalism is the only solution for the UK

    Votes: 4 1.8%

  • Total voters
    220
Playing Devil's Advocate here, Carrots, but some would say that 52 people slaughtered on their way to work is a rather large stumbling block. Not to mention the attempted atrocities that would have dwarfed 7/7 had the terrorists been successful. Or the ongoing security threat we face.

We've had a small number of atrocities carried out by a tiny number of people. If we beat up the general Muslim community on the basis of that, we'll make the problem worse and not better.

I simply do not recognise as fact this supposed pandering to Muslims. So far as I can see, daily life for me and mine goes on as it always has with no creeping Islamification of Blighty. The predominant culture is Anglo-Scots and nothing really stands a chance of changing that - unless the Anglo-Scots change it.
 
Unfortunately not so little these days - and therein lies the root of the problem. And whatever your (well thought out) arguments the problem is that there is a perception amongst large sections of the UK population that the Country has been hijacked by immigrants and they are calling enough!

Then large sections of the UK population need to give themselves a thorough talking to and stop being such muppets. Insularity is not the way ahead and if nothing else, having indigenous members of our workforce who have the linguistic and cultural skills to operate in overseas markets will improve the competitiveness of our industries and lessen our reliance on imported mercenaries such as we're having to do now.
 
Can you tell a difference in attitude between British muslims / British born muslims and muslims elsewhere?

I think I can.

I think we have another category of muslim to add to the many.

Edit:#

Aside the obvious, I have never had issues with muslims in their own countries. Muslims live in many countries - can we pin this down? I have never met an Indonesian muslim for example.

Could it be argued that proponents of islam, who run against the grain, mainly hail from the same areas?
 
Multiculturalism has failed - almost everyone is agreed on that point. The problem as regards Islamists is a separate matter, one that is based on the problems of the Wahhabi version of that faith. THAT is the problem - and one that we have encouraged, by supporting the vile dictatorships (and hence in many cases perversly boosting their opposition) throughout the Middle East, from KSA to Egypt to Libya.

As a respected person stated recently:
"Wahhabi Islam opposes and hates: it does not compromise, for that would be to dishonour the Prophet and offend Allah. It advocates a religio-political system of governance which is irreconcilable with the democratic traditions of the West."

It's not a case of being anti-Islamic. It's the Wahhabi nutters and fundies who are the problem. Almost every religion has its extremists (see Louis Theroux last week, for example) but these Islamists are the only ones actively devoting themselves to destroying Western civilisation.
 
Then large sections of the UK population need to give themselves a thorough talking to and stop being such muppets. Insularity is not the way ahead and if nothing else, having indigenous members of our workforce who have the linguistic and cultural skills to operate in overseas markets will improve the competitiveness of our industries and lessen our reliance on imported mercenaries such as we're having to do now.

Bit of of a tall order I am afraid. It means taking our current Society back awhiles to when individuals took responsibility for their own actions and the Nanny State was not as intrusive as it is.

And it will never happen.
 
It's not a case of being anti-Islamic. It's the Wahhabi nutters and fundies who are the problem. Almost every religion has its extremists (see Louis Theroux last week, for example) but these Islamists are the only ones actively devoting themselves to destroying Western civilisation.

Now there I would agree and that's the point I've been trying to get across. There are people whose beliefs contradict the law of the land and they have no place in the UK. The vast majority, however, are able to reconcile their culture/religion/moonworship/whatever with getting on with everyone else. They don't even have to dress up in bowler hats or play cricket to do so.
 
Now there I would agree and that's the point I've been trying to get across. There are people whose beliefs contradict the law of the land and they have no place in the UK. The vast majority, however, are able to reconcile their culture/religion/moonworship/whatever with getting on with everyone else. They don't even have to dress up in bowler hats or play cricket to do so.

And there is the crux of the problem, while we have extremists working in our midst, we currently have no real way to prevent their activities in this country unless and until they actually commit a criminal act.
 
Ghettoisation is standard in any immigration theory.

However the pre 1950 melting pot model saw them as temporary - 2nd or 3rd generational off spring would be fully or nearly fully intergrated and the ghettos would disperse and re-form for the newest incoming group.

What the policy of multiculturalism did (which you keep infuriatingly stating as the same thing as multi cultural society which it is not) is to create a publically funded and legally protected space in which these ghettos could be extended and expanded through two primary means. Firstly the constant largescale importation of 'family members' which undermined the normal spaced economic waves of immigration which every nation which has had immigration is set up to deal with culturally, economically and in welfare provision.It made a constant flow with which to top up problem groups.

Secondly 'negative' (to the majority) cultural aspects of immigrant cultures are normally simply overwhelmed by the primary cultural gestalt and only the positive (usually represented by increased financial gain or family stability) are kept going with the chance of them influencing the body politic in time.

Instead local government since the 1970s has worked to protect these negative cultural aspects - which prevent intergration - because they are given a completely arbitrary value by the doctrine of multiculturalism and to allow them to be challenged, debated and logically destroyed by polite erudite society would be a crime of cultural imperalism.

Hence why we have women in the Burka in British streets or Bangladeshi vote rigging. Both of these things are reprehensible to the primary culture, represent backwards steps in the progression of general cosmopolitan British Liberalism (which is predicated on the self) and critically would not have stood up to 5 minutes of legitimate discussion in the 1980s and 90s when the problem originated. But they have been protected by economic, legislative and institutional 'sensitivity' frameworks at two levels of government over 30 years.

Yesterday represented the first steps towards the dismantleing of that framework and a movement not towards some EDL racial purity but to majoratative cultural influence through open debate.
 
I'm saying that they're inflated and not without precedent. My own opinion is that a great deal of the concern stems less from the actions of the individuals concerned but from a sense of post-Imperial insecurity resulting from the disintegration of our previous identity as the seat of empire.

We never used to care whether or not people integrated. It simply did not feature on our list of things to be concerned about.

I was born in 1962, empire has nothing to do with how I identify myself. Up to now, you have been using the word multicultural in its literal sense. I do not view the word as having the same meaning as you use it when used in a political statement. I see the word as just a way of opening imigration to an unchecked level. IMO, people have been allowed to settle in the UK who are totally unsuitable to normal British values/society.

For the last few years anyone complaining about massive imigration has been declared a racist. That has been done in a kneejerk way without bothering to listen to what people are actually saying. I am fairly confident that some anti-imigration arguments are from racists, but not all of them. Why have people with views that women are not equal to men been allowed to move here and preach this crap? Those idiots are not needed to do work, they are generally uneducated buffoons and there are shed-loads of unemployed people already here.

I do believe that some imigration is needed and desirable. But not unchecked let-anyone-in imigration. It should tend to be skilled/educated people that are allowed in. We do not need general labourers unless we have both a shortage of labour and almost nobody unemployed.
 
I can remember when the problem was always expressed in terms of the West African population, and that the Pakistanis were always seen as "quiet and industrious"..

Carrots - you made a contention that "free movement of people" was always allowed within the British Empire.. are you sure that is actually true? I would suggest that economic, if not legal barriers prevent this until the post war era. The first mass immigration from the empire outside the war was funded by the Birmingham Corporation Bus company, who offered assisted passage for unskilled immigrants from the West Indies...

There have always been small pockets of immigration in to UK in the past such as the Manchester Chinese and the Dundee Bengalis following the textile trade, however these were usually reasonably well heeled communities from the managerial or artisan classes.

Love the "Burkha Girl" dating ads on the board BTW :winkrazz:
 
No I haven't forgotten about the Irish Terrorism problem, that campaign while murderous in its intent, and occasionally succeeding in its bombing attempts was not committed by suicide bombers, and in 98% of cases the activity was always notified to the authorities prior to the attack taking place. Occasional deaths of bombers while carrying and laying out their murderous devices doesn't really count against someone so committed to their cause that they will carry explosives in a rucksack with the sole intention of self destruction to carry out their bombing. Lets not forget that the 7/7 bombing was very nearly repeated some 15 days later by another 4 individuals with similar intent. Fortunately their bombs did not fully initiate.

What a load of total bollox! you sound like an American, an apologist for the IRA/INLA et al!

A bomb is a bomb, it matters not a fig how the bomb is delivered whether it be hidden in a car or strapped to someones body. A terrorist is a terrorist whether they be Irish catholic or Asian Muslim, their aim is to attain dominance of their cause by applying means of terror.

The only difference in the two is that the Irish sometimes realised that too many deaths of innocent bystanders could be detrimental to sympathy for their cause, and usually they werent that keen on dying for their cause. As for phoning in warnings, yep they did that at Warrington all right didnt they!

The modern breed of Islamonut doesnt give a toss about innocent bystanders dont give a toss about support for their cause and are quite happy to die for their cause! and this is the only difference that makes them more feared than the IRA were.

Edited to add I guess the one good thing about the Irish terrorists is that they only wanted control of their own homeland and were a 'National' terrorist as opposed to the Islamonuts who seem to want to control the entire planet...I guess this is a far better reason to fear them than the IRA/INLA et al.
 
Carrots - you made a contention that "free movement of people" was always allowed within the British Empire.. are you sure that is actually true? I would suggest that economic, if not legal barriers prevent this until the post war era. The first mass immigration from the empire outside the war was funded by the Birmingham Corporation Bus company, who offered assisted passage for unskilled immigrants from the West Indies...

It was written into the legal system - no subject of HM could be hindered in their lawful movement throughout the Empire. Economic concerns undoubtedly played a part in shaping the patterns of migration, both positively and negatively, but there were no legal hindrances.

The Indian communities in SA are one specific example - if you look at the debates of the time, there was a body of opinion that indenturing was a form of latter-day slavery but since free movement was entirely lawful there was nothing anyone could do to stop it.
 
I do not view the word as having the same meaning as you use it when used in a political statement.

And therein lies another problem with this debate - there's no consensus agreement on what the term actually means, leaving people free to interpret it as best suits their existing views. That's why we've would up circling around the actions of a small portion of one immigrant community while happily ignoring the peaceful coexistence of others.
 
Top