Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Welchester said:

Whom someone who recently rejoined the Government once described as 'mad, swivel-eyed loons'.

 

Possibly the only point on which I would agree with him.

[alastairq]

A month goes by, then suddenly an explosion of wit and acute observation........Nothing at all like our local Parish council meetings...

[monkeysarefun]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

As to my second post, as you guessed, only the first option was my policy reccomendation!

 

 

 

And my post was based purely on the fact that your government seems to have got its playbook from our policies of 2001 onwards, from the "Stop The Boats!" slogan to offshore detention. 

 

You also seem to have  nicked another part of our  immigration strategy, whereby if you have money above a certain threshold  you can buy your place in, ahead of those who more desperately require a safe haven.

 

 

Lacking there so far (so  you have therefore something to look forward to)  is as I said the excision of the UK from the UK immigration zone, so even if an asylum seeker lands on the shores of the UK they aren't' actually in the UK for legal and humanitarian purposes and therefore the rules of asylum seeking do not apply to them.

 

Then no doubt you will get the "On Water Matters" phrase, whereby anything to do with asylum seekers (boats intercepted, arrivals landing etc) is classed as an "on water matter", and  therefore super secret and  never to be commented on by the government . 

 

  As in "Minister, can you tell us how many asylum seeker boats were intercepted  this month?"  Standard answer:  "I'm sorry, but that is an On Water Matter, and the government does not comment on On Water Matters as you well know". This fixes the problem of asylum seekers in the governments mind since they no longer need to talk about them or give details about arrivals etc, which therefore makes the problem magically go away. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by monkeysarefun

[webbcompound]

So the government is exercised about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Perhaps if they didn't include the 300,000 students from overseas in their ludicrous calculations things would get "better" at a stroke.

[Caley Jim]

12 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

So the government is exercised about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Perhaps if they didn't include the 300,000 students from overseas in their ludicrous calculations things would get "better" at a stroke.

My daughter is working in a University post where she was dealing with postgraduate students, almost all from overseas.  It was their fees that are paying her salary!  If the number of overseas students is reduced then the Universities are going to suffer financially.

 

Forgive me if I'm missing a point here, but I cannot get my head round the logic that the threat of shipping immigrants off to Rwanda is somehow or other going to stop the illegal gangs taking oodles of money from them and dispatching them from the beaches of France!  Why aren't the French getting on top of the gangs? 

 

I'll tell you why, they're only too happy to see the back of the poor souls and don't give a sou what happens to them after they are out of their hair!

 

Jim

[monkeysarefun]

57 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Forgive me if I'm missing a point here, but I cannot get my head round the logic that the threat of shipping immigrants off to Rwanda is somehow or other going to stop the illegal gangs taking oodles of money from them and dispatching them from the beaches of France!  Why aren't the French getting on top of the gangs? 

 

 

 

Get this - we have one here at the moment, the minute he got here he got paid £1,500,000!  I dont  get £1,500,000 and I've  lived here forever.  There were heaps of places he could have stayed  on the way here instead , but no he has to end up all the way down here.

 

Before you know it his kind will all be here -  talking on the bus in their silly accent.

Edited December 7, 2023 by monkeysarefun

[Edwardian]

I have to say that I think that underlying this government's policies is White genocide conspiracy theory

 

This might seem odd when we have a Prime Minister of Indian extraction, a black British Home Secretary and two rabidly authoritarian, anti-immigration ex-Home Secretaries who both have heritage in the Indian sub-continent. 

 

I think the clue lies in Cruella Braverman's mad rants against multiculturism prior to leaving office. 

 

I may be quite wrong, but bear with while I try to reason this one out. 

 

James O'Brien asked how could the Home Secretary, an asian woman raised to one of the high offices of state claim that multicultralism has failed? That, I suspect, is because Mr O'Brien and the then Home Secretary understand the term 'multiculturalism' in entirely different ways. 

 

As a term, I don't think that 'multicultralism' has a single settled definition, but a reasonably general definition would be 'the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society'.

 

I guess that Braverman believes it to represent diversity and pluralism, where the reality of the rich tapestry of British life is woven with threads from many cultures, preserving their customs and identities. In other words, Braverman sees multicultralism as the opposite of assimilation, and she hates it for that.

 

 

She, I guess, believes in assimilation into a British monoculture of her own imagining, which is predominently white and certainly with inherited white anglo-saxon cultural norms. It is a world where the Notting Hill carnival is eschewed in favour of endless repeats of Midsomer Murders.   

 

If you are a well-to-do, middle class person with drive and ambition, or drive ambition and an incredibly wealthy spouse, and you embrace the culture of the establishment of the country your parents came to, you can be as brown as you like and that does not matter, this is not a rascist country, government studies have shown. Now that is not intended to sound snide. Such efforts at assimilation with the dominant culture of a country are a perfectly legitimate choice.  

 

The fact remains, assimilated sons and daughters of immigrants with wealth and access to power are not the ones Daily Mail readers are taught to fear.  This is ironic, because these politicians, along with their multitudinous white colleagues, are those most likely to cause anarchy in Britiain by their cynically casual erosion of the rule of law and the conventions and institutions of our democracy in the pursuit of bonkers populist policies and their own personal corruption. 

 

The question is to what extent should immigrants be required to assimilate. Those of us old enough will remember how the waters of the metaphorical Tiber were prophesied to run red with blood because of a lack of assimilation, and, later, we had Norman Tebbit with his 'cricket test'. It remains a preoccupation of those on the right of the Conservative Party. 

 

Multicultralism says it's fine not to conform to the host country monoculture. And, well, it is fine.

 

So is it more than a theorhetical problem, a manufactured issue? A strawman argument like the little boats themselves? 

 

We have never, I suggest, been comfortable with immigrants doing everything they did at home. Where cultural practises offend the laws of the land and the predominent morality that the law is created to reflect, we do require compliance; so-called honour killings and female circumcision are examples of this.

 

By and large, though, within the fairly generous parameters of the law, people are free to continue their own cultural traditions and to pursue freedom of religion etc.  Why is this, or might it be, a problem?  Well, I suggest, it isn't.

 

So, why should Braverman, like the Borg, abhor multiculturalism in favour of assimilation?

 

Well, I think it is because of a populist fear of large numbers of poor, unassimilated, cuturally and ethnically foreign (for which read 'brown' by and large) migrants "overwhelming" an indigenous population and culture (for which read 'white'). In other words, if there are too many unassimilated poor brown people coming in who do not share our 'values', they will ultimately displace the culture of the host nation and its indigenous folk will ultimately become the oppressed minority.

 

For this reason, having a wealthy assimilated brown prime minister and three successive brown Home Secretaries in no way lessens the inherently rascist spectre that is the sub-textual appeal of current Conservative policy to it base.  

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Edwardian
spelling

[GMKAT7]

Hello again folks,

 

The same R2 lunchtime show today was discussing the topic further.

 

One of the 'swivel-eyed' loon listeners called to suggest that the RNLI should just allow the 'small boats' to capsize/sink in The Channel and not act as a 'taxi service' for the illegal immigrants.

 

Apart from the inhumanity of that suggestion (should we also say that the emergency services should not attend if fire, etc breaks out at an asylum hotel/centre?), the boss (SWMBO) rightly said that those proposing a course of action like that should stand on the beaches and watch the poor bu99ers drown. Then they may have a conscience attack (although they probably wouldn't).

 

I watched Yvette Cooper on the Politics Joe (oops, mentioned the 'P' word) website last night and her dismantling of the Sunk/Cleverley (really?) approach was excellent. She even used the phrase 'batsh1t' :)

 

Cheers, Nigel.

[Compound2632]

If I was to assimilate to the dominant middle-class culture of my immediate area I would be attending the Hindu temple, formerly a Baptist church.

[GMKAT7]

Hello Stephen,

 

As The Borg said to Jean-Luc Picard (SNG), "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated".

 

Cheers, Nigel.

[Edwardian]

22 minutes ago, GMKAT7 said:

Hello Stephen,

 

As The Borg said to Jean-Luc Picard (SNG), "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated".

 

Cheers, Nigel.

 

Well, they weren't wrong, were they?

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

51 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I have to say that I think that underlying this government's policies is White genocide conspiracy theory

 

This might seem odd when we have a Prime Minister of Indian extraction, a black British Home Secretary and two rabidly authoritarian, anti-immigration ex-Home Secretaries who both have heritage in the Indian sub-continent. 

 

I think the clue lies in Cruella Braverman's mad rants against multiculturism prior to leaving office. 

 

I may be quite wrong, but bear with while I try to reason this one out. 

 

James O'Brien asked how could the Home Secretary, an asian woman raised to one of the high offices of state claim that multicultralism has failed? That, I suspect, is because Mr O'Brien and the then Home Secretary understand the term 'multiculturalism' in entirely different ways. 

 

As a term, I don't think that 'multicultralism' has a single settled definition, but a reasonably general definition would be 'the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society'.

 

I guess that Braverman believes it to represent diversity and pluralism, where the reality of the rich tapestry of British life is woven with threads from many cultures, preserving their customs and identities. In other words, Braverman sees multicultralism as the opposite of assimilation, and she hates it for that.

 

 

She, I guess, believes in assimilation into a British monoculture of her own imagining, which is predominently white and certainly with inherited white anglo-saxon cultural norms. It is a world where the Notting Hill carnival is eschewed in favour of endless repeats of Midsomer Murders.   

 

If you are a well-to-do, middle class person with drive and ambition, or drive ambition and an incredibly wealthy spouse, and you embrace the culture of the establishment of the country your parents came to, you can be as brown as you like and that does not matter, this is not a rascist country, government studies have shown. Now that is not intended to sound snide. Such efforts at assimilation with the dominant culture of a country are a perfectly legitimate choice.  

 

The fact remains, assimilated sons and daughters of immigrants with wealth and access to power are not the ones Daily Mail readers are taught to fear.  This is ironic, because these politicians, along with their multitudinous white colleagues, are those most likely to cause anarchy in Britiain by their cynically casual erosion of the rule of law and the conventions and institutions of our democracy in the pursuit of bonkers populist policies and their own personal corruption. 

 

The question is to what extent should immigrants be required to assimilate. Those of us old enough will remember how the waters of the metaphorical Tiber were prophesied to run red with blood because of a lack of assimilation, and, later, we had Norman Tebbit with his 'cricket test'. It remains a preoccupation of those on the right of the Conservative Party. 

 

Multicultralism says it's fine not to conform to the host country monoculture. And, well, it is fine.

 

So is it more than a theorhetical problem, a manufactured issue? A strawman argument like the little boats themselves? 

 

We have never, I suggest, been comfortable with immigrants doing everything they did at home. Where cultural practises offend the laws of the land and the predominent morality that the law is created to reflect, we do require compliance; so-called honour killings and female circumcision are examples of this.

 

By and large, though, within the fairly generous parameters of the law, people are free to continue their own cultural traditions and to pursue freedom of religion etc.  Why is this, or might it be, a problem?  Well, I suggest, it isn't.

 

So, why should Braverman, like the Borg, abhor multiculturalism in favour of assimilation?

 

Well, I think it is because of a populist fear of large numbers of poor, unassimilated, cuturally and ethnically foreign (for which read 'brown' by and large) migrants "overwhelming" an indigenous population and culture (for which read 'white'). In other words, if there are too many unassimilated poor brown people coming in who do not share our 'values', they will ultimately displace the culture of the host nation and its indigenous folk will ultimately become the oppressed minority.

 

For this reason, having a wealthy assimilated brown prime minister and three successive brown Home Secretaries in no way lessens the inherently rascist spectre that is the sub-textual appeal of current Conservative policy to it base.  

 

Yes, maybe. But class is very important too and a lot of your argument applies equally well to, say, someone with a Leeds comprehensive school education. The current PM, in contrast, is a product of an elite public school.

[Nearholmer]

Assimilated into what, though?

 

Only an idiot could believe that there is, or ever has been, a single, homogenous culture across Britain, let alone the UK.

 

Oh, and is there any evidence that people who arrive by rubber dinghy don’t assimilate into whatever it is they assimilate into? Not really, no. Some assimilate so well, and so quickly, that nobody can find them, which suggests that the don’t exactly stick out like a sore thumb.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Assimilated into what, though?

 

Only an idiot could believe that there is, or ever has been, a single, homogenous culture across Britain, let alone the UK.

 

By that measure, idiocy is widespread.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Assimilated into what, though?

 

Only an idiot could believe that there is, or ever has been, a single, homogenous culture across Britain, let alone the UK.

 

Yes, and that's the point, which is why I used the words "a British monoculture of her [Braverman's] own imagining"

 

It's a right-wing populist trope feeding into conspiracy theories, so of course it has no objective reality!

 

It's like the guy who interviewed MAGA Republicans at a Trump rally asking  "so, you want to make America great again. When would you say it was last great?"

 

A variety of answers were given. In response to each the interviewer asked, 'but what about such and such issue of that time', and each interviewee in turn conceded that, no, their chosen moment of greatness was not actually a time when the US was objectively great.

 

Eventually they got back to Day 1 1776 and the concession that it's all been downhill since then!

 

The point is that This England, to which immigrants are to assimilate, which is to revel at last in its hard-won sovereignty, does not exist, it has never existed, it is not a place, not a reality and certainly not a set of acceptable values, but a fictitious sentimental mental hinterland England where Daily Mail readers dwell in their alternative reality and Dame Vera neverendingly sings about ironically non-indigenous bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover.

 

It's b0ll0cks.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Oh, and is there any evidence that people who arrive by rubber dinghy don’t assimilate into whatever it is they assimilate into? Not really, no. Some assimilate so well, and so quickly, that nobody can find them, which suggests that the don’t exactly stick out like a sore thumb.

 

No, nor would it matter if they didn't, but the populist narrative does not require any of it to be true!

 

This is why it is so hard to counter this nonsense; the truth, facts, have no impact on the belief. 

 

BREXIT, Johnson, Braverman, Small Boats, Take Back Control; these are merely the delusional totems of a cult.  

[Andy Hayter]

7 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

 Why aren't the French getting on top of the gangs? 

 

I'll tell you why, they're only too happy to see the back of the poor souls and don't give a sou what happens to them after they are out of their hair!

 

Jim

 

The flaw in your thinking Jim, as expressed in the second statement, is that there is more than a suspicion that many of the gangs that are exporting asylum seekers to the UK are also involved in importing them to France (and other countries on the Med).   Since as a rough number, for every 10 that arrive in France, 1 moves on to the UK, there is a strong incentive to get to the top of these organisations and cut off the heads.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Andy Hayter
typo

[alastairq]

As an aside, I suspect the next Putin-style conflict will be Venezuela's intention to invade [for financial reasons] Guyana.

 

Or should I say, for the benefit of Maduro and his chums..and their chums, and so on?

 

Will we, the Brits, get involved with assisting Guyana?  Given our past combined history?

 

Will we, the Brits, really care?

 

 Will the US be so tied up with diving up their own fundament, that they won't bother either?

 

I don't suppose   Guyana could rely on Brazil very much?

 

The collapse of democracy as we get tied up with concerns over who gets what at christmas?

 

After all, given that Venezuela has as much oil to sell as Russia?

 

As would Guyana?

 

Opportunism....

 

Corruption at its worst?

 

[Edwardian]

29 minutes ago, alastairq said:

As an aside, I suspect the next Putin-style conflict will be Venezuela's intention to invade [for financial reasons] Guyana.

 

Or should I say, for the benefit of Maduro and his chums..and their chums, and so on?

 

Will we, the Brits, get involved with assisting Guyana?  Given our past combined history?

 

Will we, the Brits, really care?

 

 Will the US be so tied up with diving up their own fundament, that they won't bother either?

 

I don't suppose   Guyana could rely on Brazil very much?

 

The collapse of democracy as we get tied up with concerns over who gets what at christmas?

 

After all, given that Venezuela has as much oil to sell as Russia?

 

As would Guyana?

 

Opportunism....

 

Corruption at its worst?

 

 

Yes, probably that next, and, after that, give that goon in Argentina enough time to fail and the Falklands will be invaded again.

 

Brazil is an ally of Guyana, so it might intervene.  

[teaky]

I believe Brasil has already moved troops to the border as a precaution.

[teaky]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, probably that next, and, after that, give that goon in Argentina enough time to fail and the Falklands will be invaded again.

 

This one you mean?

Courtesy of Private Eye.

[monkeysarefun]

Meanwhile in the Pacific, China is becoming increasingly  belligerent , its latest act was to injure two Australian naval divers with SONAR.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a45976112/chinese-warship-injures-australian-divers-with-sonar/

Edited December 8, 2023 by monkeysarefun

[Schooner]

@alastairq, if you have the time I found this typically informative and useful:

 

China's behaviour in the SCS is staggeringly reckless. I simply cannot get my head around a direct intentional attack on people in the water; or the life-threatening disabling of supply vessels by water cannon* and ramming. Even from a purely professional point of view, it's appalling. 

 

*Turns out engines don't like turning when their exhaust stacks are full of oggin.

 

On the plus side, a quick flick through this should cheers us all up

Oh...no, wait a minute...the other one. Can one be cheered down?

 

Happy Friday all!

 

EDIT: Actually, if you'll indulge one more act of drum-banging on some genuinely positive news: counter to all the tone of the debate, Ukraine is doing rather well. Yes, the media narrative has gone through doom and gloom into the Full Frazer...

...but if we accept that Ukraine's 'Summer Offensive' Plan A did not survive contact with the enemy*, they've had an astonishingly successful year. Reason to be chipper, for all that a difficult situation continues.

 

*...or the chronic undersupply of Western aid promised, and on which the plan was based, and with whose assistance that plan was tested and gamed. Poor form.

 

With brain in free-wheel mode, seeing @Compound2632's "elite public school" comment and Mr Stewart's book in the same screen has has put me in mind of the excellent The Rest is Politics podcast he does with Mr Campbell. I've stopped listening to this regularly as I've found the latter's constant mention of Eton has become actively unhelpful in trying to understand the topic under discussion. I feel like I've missed something. Is the over-representation (vs % of national population) of those who attended "elite public school" in public life different to those who attended "elite music school" being over-represented in orchestras, or "elite technical college" in STEM, or "elite training camps" in national squads etc etc etc?

 

Yes the UK has a significant and worsening social inequality problem. This is deeply troubling. Inequality in education and subsequent opportunities likewise. What I cannot see is that it is the fault of the existence of a single public* school. What am I not getting?

 

*Not private. It's important. Anyone is entitled to earn a place, regardless of background or backing, unlike purely private schools where cash is all that counts. Turns out about 30% of pupils at Eton, to stick with the example, are on some form of financial support from the school to be able to attend. I can see it's not good, but I can't see why it's the problem...for all that they have a funny uniform. Not even the funniest:

Edited December 16, 2023 by Schooner
Friday free-wheel brain. Edited for clarity (I hope!)

[alastairq]

Yes, I am subscribed to Perun's channel....have been for some time now....

 

When [If?] I get to see or new conservative candidate next year, I must remember to ask him what his [or his party's] strategy is for dealing with putin's inevitable challenge to NATO  before the end of this decade? What, they don't actually have a strategy? 

Quelle Surprise!

Oh well, I guess it'll be like covid again....this time it'll be the hardest up dealing with the continual power outages we will be subjected to, courtesy of russian cruise missiles and strategically important [but doubtless undefended] power nodes this country isn't liberally outfitted with?

 

All intended to persuade us, the voters, to persuade our government [whoever it will be?] to stop supporting Ukraine..Or the other Baltic countries...

It's coming, they've all been warned....Probably all got their Caribbean villas booked for the duration..

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Schooner said:

Linking Mr Stewart and @Compound2632,

 

I'm not at all sure about that; It's not something I want to have happen. Bit confused, really.

 

Generally speaking, I hold that it's not the school's fault but the parents'. GIGO.

[Welchester]

16 hours ago, Schooner said:

they have a funny uniform. Not even the funniest:

 

 

Known, I believe as 'Housey'.