View Poll Results: Was Enoch Powell correct in his "Rivers of Blood" Speech
Yes
47
75.81%
No
14
22.58%
I don't know
1
1.61%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll
Enoch Powell - Was he right?
BANNED
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
My head isn't in the sand. I just prefer to debate facts and not opinions.
For example, fom Home Office figures the break down of percentage of people who have committed any offence (by ethnic grouping):
White: 42%
Mixed: 39%
Asian or Asian British: 21%
Black or Black British: 28%
Other: 23%
If you jyst want to talk about violent crime (i.e. assaults, that type of thing)
White: 26%
Mixed: 28%
Asian or Asian British: 13%
Black or Black British: 16%
Other: 18%
So a higher percentage of white folk have committed violent crime than Asians have of any type of offence, for example.
The country's fcuked and the finger of blame is pointing the wrong way. This isn't 1930's Germany. It isn't the immigrants fault any more than i was the Jews' fault back then. And unfortunately, it seems those of us that can do something about it are happy enough to shirk the responsibility and blame the first scapegoat that comes along.
For example, fom Home Office figures the break down of percentage of people who have committed any offence (by ethnic grouping):
White: 42%
Mixed: 39%
Asian or Asian British: 21%
Black or Black British: 28%
Other: 23%
If you jyst want to talk about violent crime (i.e. assaults, that type of thing)
White: 26%
Mixed: 28%
Asian or Asian British: 13%
Black or Black British: 16%
Other: 18%
So a higher percentage of white folk have committed violent crime than Asians have of any type of offence, for example.
The country's fcuked and the finger of blame is pointing the wrong way. This isn't 1930's Germany. It isn't the immigrants fault any more than i was the Jews' fault back then. And unfortunately, it seems those of us that can do something about it are happy enough to shirk the responsibility and blame the first scapegoat that comes along.
links to your source
links to the home office that live on theses estates source
and admit it you dont come from these run down area's
its just what you think
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
From: Disco, Disco!
+
Illegals is a no brainer, they have already broken the UK laws by entering the UK illegally so should go.
Simple
Last edited by The Zohan; Jun 7, 2009 at 06:33 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
From: Disco, Disco!
I know quite a few dyed in the wool Labour supporters who have been turned off by NL and are now being swayed by the likes of the right wing parties because of NL and their **** poor immigration multicultural policies. There are not Sun reading yobbos, or dole scroungers, one an accountant who's business partner is a Indian and another who is educated to degree level and a writer/novelist, both grew up on Labour and with left wing views...i could site others...
NL could not have been a better recruiting sargeant for right and far right TBH and i despise the BNP!
I think you will find that scoobynet reflects more than just SN and more like the country as a whole
again, thanks NL!
Last edited by The Zohan; Jun 7, 2009 at 07:22 PM.
I think the sponging immigrant contingent on scoobynet are getting worried
and thanks to new labour your lowlife scumbags no longer live on dodgy estates. Thanks to the private rental initiative, and the fact landlords can't rent their houses out for toffee they are coming to a house near you
and thanks to new labour your lowlife scumbags no longer live on dodgy estates. Thanks to the private rental initiative, and the fact landlords can't rent their houses out for toffee they are coming to a house near you
I am traditionally a Labour voter who is utterly disillusioned with the current government and has been for some years, but I feel no urge to turn to the far right. Guess I am just the odd one out eh?
BANNED
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Thats an unfair statement. Nothing to do with being right wing, its a matter of sheer application of common sense. Our infrastructure will only stand so much immigration and problems in that respect are already over the top.
To be honest about it, is it fair that we should have to suppport a vast intake of immigrants flooding our public services and crowding our accommodation in comparison with other Eu countries or others, and would it not be better to help those people to develop their own countries up to a standard where they can enjoy a high standard of living on their own account instead of living off what we have provided on our own side, eventually dragging us down so that no one is going to get anything out of it. Before anyone starts shouting, there is of course nothing racist intended in what I said. Of course we should not turn our backs on those who are not as well off, but I am suggesting a better way all round in which to do that. Surely its better to help to develop the rest of the world too.
I am neither right or left wing F1, I do not in any way support extremism, it always goes too far one way or the other for a sensible course of action to be employed. It is the fully balanced view which is most effective and most likely to be fair to all.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; Jun 8, 2009 at 01:08 PM.
Les, firstly I hope my last sentence was taken as tongue in cheek as that is how it was meant hence the
However, I really do not see how you can argue that Scoobynet is not generally a right wing establishment or the posters in NSR are anyway. Even before Brown and Blair started going stupid this place has always been a bastion of support for the centre-right leaning further right (not far right I might add) and that's OK.
The thing is while I agree in part with what you say about the immigration policies of this government etc. I do not place the blame for the country's ills solely at the door of the immigrants and that is where I differ from many others on here (and no, I do not include you in that).
I think there are way too many on here who led by the scaremongering of the likes of the Daily Mail think the only problem we have are the 'ethnics'. Sasly our problems go way deeper than that and, for instance, have far more to do with the welfare state than immigration.
And although I will not be popular for saying this the worst thing to happen to the UK in the last 30 years has been the systematic destruction of the social fabric of the country under this and the last government. The dog eat dog, greed driven, win at all costs society is at odds with what the UK used to mean and I am sure many of those vets at the celebrations at the weekend must wonder what the hell they bothered fighting for and that makes me, at least, extremely embarrassed and very sad at what this once great country is becoming.
However, I really do not see how you can argue that Scoobynet is not generally a right wing establishment or the posters in NSR are anyway. Even before Brown and Blair started going stupid this place has always been a bastion of support for the centre-right leaning further right (not far right I might add) and that's OK.
The thing is while I agree in part with what you say about the immigration policies of this government etc. I do not place the blame for the country's ills solely at the door of the immigrants and that is where I differ from many others on here (and no, I do not include you in that).
I think there are way too many on here who led by the scaremongering of the likes of the Daily Mail think the only problem we have are the 'ethnics'. Sasly our problems go way deeper than that and, for instance, have far more to do with the welfare state than immigration.
And although I will not be popular for saying this the worst thing to happen to the UK in the last 30 years has been the systematic destruction of the social fabric of the country under this and the last government. The dog eat dog, greed driven, win at all costs society is at odds with what the UK used to mean and I am sure many of those vets at the celebrations at the weekend must wonder what the hell they bothered fighting for and that makes me, at least, extremely embarrassed and very sad at what this once great country is becoming.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Les, firstly I hope my last sentence was taken as tongue in cheek as that is how it was meant hence the
However, I really do not see how you can argue that Scoobynet is not generally a right wing establishment or the posters in NSR are anyway. Even before Brown and Blair started going stupid this place has always been a bastion of support for the centre-right leaning further right (not far right I might add) and that's OK.
The thing is while I agree in part with what you say about the immigration policies of this government etc. I do not place the blame for the country's ills solely at the door of the immigrants and that is where I differ from many others on here (and no, I do not include you in that).
I think there are way too many on here who led by the scaremongering of the likes of the Daily Mail think the only problem we have are the 'ethnics'. Sasly our problems go way deeper than that and, for instance, have far more to do with the welfare state than immigration.
And although I will not be popular for saying this the worst thing to happen to the UK in the last 30 years has been the systematic destruction of the social fabric of the country under this and the last government. The dog eat dog, greed driven, win at all costs society is at odds with what the UK used to mean and I am sure many of those vets at the celebrations at the weekend must wonder what the hell they bothered fighting for and that makes me, at least, extremely embarrassed and very sad at what this once great country is becoming.
However, I really do not see how you can argue that Scoobynet is not generally a right wing establishment or the posters in NSR are anyway. Even before Brown and Blair started going stupid this place has always been a bastion of support for the centre-right leaning further right (not far right I might add) and that's OK.
The thing is while I agree in part with what you say about the immigration policies of this government etc. I do not place the blame for the country's ills solely at the door of the immigrants and that is where I differ from many others on here (and no, I do not include you in that).
I think there are way too many on here who led by the scaremongering of the likes of the Daily Mail think the only problem we have are the 'ethnics'. Sasly our problems go way deeper than that and, for instance, have far more to do with the welfare state than immigration.
And although I will not be popular for saying this the worst thing to happen to the UK in the last 30 years has been the systematic destruction of the social fabric of the country under this and the last government. The dog eat dog, greed driven, win at all costs society is at odds with what the UK used to mean and I am sure many of those vets at the celebrations at the weekend must wonder what the hell they bothered fighting for and that makes me, at least, extremely embarrassed and very sad at what this once great country is becoming.
I have no disagreement in anything else in your post and support your last paragraph completely.
Les
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Well to the original question...
Enoch Powel was clearly and demonstrably not right was he, we don't have 'rivers of blood'. We might have some violence and other social problems brought on by immigration, but we certainly have the near civil war that Powel was talking about.
Enoch Powel was clearly and demonstrably not right was he, we don't have 'rivers of blood'. We might have some violence and other social problems brought on by immigration, but we certainly have the near civil war that Powel was talking about.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Well what I will say F1 is that it is not so much right wing as such as disappointment in and lack of support for NL and disgust at what it has done to old Labour which at least was a comparatively honest organisation which used to work for the people of this country.
I have no disagreement in anything else in your post and support your last paragraph completely.
Les
I have no disagreement in anything else in your post and support your last paragraph completely.
Les
LOL
Les thats a ridiculous statement... ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE...EVERY ONE the SN consensus is way off to the right
Well what I will say F1 is that it is not so much right wing as such as disappointment in and lack of support for NL and disgust at what it has done to old Labour which at least was a comparatively honest organisation which used to work for the people of this country.
I have no disagreement in anything else in your post and support your last paragraph completely.
Les
I have no disagreement in anything else in your post and support your last paragraph completely.
Les
Couldn't agree more with what you said about the Labour party of old, they were, if nothing else, honest and behind the working man - the current Labour party could not be any further removed from that
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,430
Likes: 1
From: Away from this place
Well, I voted yes to this one.
Not because I'm racist, and not becasue I see people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds as the problem.
I see the problem as being down to the discontent felt by those who, for the sake of simplicity I will refer to as white British. Becasue if you go far enough back, most of us will be immigrants of some description.
Discontent arising from apparent positive discrimination in favour of anyone who isn't white British.
Discontent arising from seeing police and other authorities afraid or unable to act for fear of being branded racist.
Discontent from people feeling alienated in their own country
Discontent from being perceived (irrespective of what actualy constitutes racism) as racist if you refer to someone directly by ther race and or colour, yet being referred to as white is seemingly ok.
The inconsistency that means calling someone a "Jock" is a laugh, but a "Paki" is a henous crime. Inconsistency that allows a Black person to use the word ****** in song lyrics is fine, or even to each other is fine, but all manner of ****e falls upon anyone white using the word.
And the list goes on.
However, I would suggest that the discontent generally hasn't arisen because of the those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living here. That discontent has arisen becasue of the manner in which Government (and I'm not pointing any fingers directly here) have, in effect, dealt with the entire matter.
Not because I'm racist, and not becasue I see people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds as the problem.
I see the problem as being down to the discontent felt by those who, for the sake of simplicity I will refer to as white British. Becasue if you go far enough back, most of us will be immigrants of some description.
Discontent arising from apparent positive discrimination in favour of anyone who isn't white British.
Discontent arising from seeing police and other authorities afraid or unable to act for fear of being branded racist.
Discontent from people feeling alienated in their own country
Discontent from being perceived (irrespective of what actualy constitutes racism) as racist if you refer to someone directly by ther race and or colour, yet being referred to as white is seemingly ok.
The inconsistency that means calling someone a "Jock" is a laugh, but a "Paki" is a henous crime. Inconsistency that allows a Black person to use the word ****** in song lyrics is fine, or even to each other is fine, but all manner of ****e falls upon anyone white using the word.
And the list goes on.
However, I would suggest that the discontent generally hasn't arisen because of the those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living here. That discontent has arisen becasue of the manner in which Government (and I'm not pointing any fingers directly here) have, in effect, dealt with the entire matter.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
From: Dumbartonshire
Well, I voted yes to this one.
Not because I'm racist, and not becasue I see people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds as the problem.
I see the problem as being down to the discontent felt by those who, for the sake of simplicity I will refer to as white British. Becasue if you go far enough back, most of us will be immigrants of some description.
Discontent arising from apparent positive discrimination in favour of anyone who isn't white British.
Discontent arising from seeing police and other authorities afraid or unable to act for fear of being branded racist.
Discontent from people feeling alienated in their own country
Discontent from being perceived (irrespective of what actualy constitutes racism) as racist if you refer to someone directly by ther race and or colour, yet being referred to as white is seemingly ok.
The inconsistency that means calling someone a "Jock" is a laugh, but a "Paki" is a henous crime. Inconsistency that allows a Black person to use the word ****** in song lyrics is fine, or even to each other is fine, but all manner of ****e falls upon anyone white using the word.
And the list goes on.
However, I would suggest that the discontent generally hasn't arisen because of the those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living here. That discontent has arisen becasue of the manner in which Government (and I'm not pointing any fingers directly here) have, in effect, dealt with the entire matter.
Not because I'm racist, and not becasue I see people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds as the problem.
I see the problem as being down to the discontent felt by those who, for the sake of simplicity I will refer to as white British. Becasue if you go far enough back, most of us will be immigrants of some description.
Discontent arising from apparent positive discrimination in favour of anyone who isn't white British.
Discontent arising from seeing police and other authorities afraid or unable to act for fear of being branded racist.
Discontent from people feeling alienated in their own country
Discontent from being perceived (irrespective of what actualy constitutes racism) as racist if you refer to someone directly by ther race and or colour, yet being referred to as white is seemingly ok.
The inconsistency that means calling someone a "Jock" is a laugh, but a "Paki" is a henous crime. Inconsistency that allows a Black person to use the word ****** in song lyrics is fine, or even to each other is fine, but all manner of ****e falls upon anyone white using the word.
And the list goes on.
However, I would suggest that the discontent generally hasn't arisen because of the those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living here. That discontent has arisen becasue of the manner in which Government (and I'm not pointing any fingers directly here) have, in effect, dealt with the entire matter.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
[quote=Devildog;8755134]Well, I voted yes to this one.
Not because I'm racist, and not becasue I see people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds as the problem.
I see the problem as being down to the discontent felt by those who, for the sake of simplicity I will refer to as white British. Becasue if you go far enough back, most of us will be immigrants of some description.
[QUOTE]Discontent arising from apparent positive discrimination in favour of anyone who isn't white British.[That's a bit of an exaggeration though isn't]
[QUOTE]Discontent arising from seeing police and other authorities afraid or unable to act for fear of being branded racist.[the problem is that for many years the police were institutionally racist, they still carry that legacy unfortunately]
[QUOTE]Discontent from people feeling alienated in their own country[Some yes, but this is a long way from a majority view (i would guess)] [QUOTE]Discontent from being perceived (irrespective of what actualy constitutes racism) as racist if you refer to someone directly by ther race and or colour, yet being referred to as white is seemingly ok. [I'm not sure it's ever been considered racist to refer to someone by their colour, as always it's the motives behind the words that matter]
[QUOTE]The inconsistency that means calling someone a "Jock" is a laugh, but a "Paki" is a henous crime. Inconsistency that allows a Black person to use the word ****** in song lyrics is fine, or even to each other is fine, but all manner of ****e falls upon anyone white using the word. [Because it wasn't black people who enslaved each other and used that word to describe themselves]
And the list goes on.
However, I would suggest that the discontent generally hasn't arisen because of the those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living here. That discontent has arisen becasue of the manner in which Government (and I'm not pointing any fingers directly here) have, in effect, dealt with the entire matter.[I agree for decades immigration policy has been muddled and ill-concevied]
btw apolgies for the rubbish edits/quotes, I still haven't figured that function out
Not because I'm racist, and not becasue I see people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds as the problem.
I see the problem as being down to the discontent felt by those who, for the sake of simplicity I will refer to as white British. Becasue if you go far enough back, most of us will be immigrants of some description.
[QUOTE]Discontent arising from apparent positive discrimination in favour of anyone who isn't white British.[That's a bit of an exaggeration though isn't]
[QUOTE]Discontent arising from seeing police and other authorities afraid or unable to act for fear of being branded racist.[the problem is that for many years the police were institutionally racist, they still carry that legacy unfortunately]
[QUOTE]Discontent from people feeling alienated in their own country[Some yes, but this is a long way from a majority view (i would guess)] [QUOTE]Discontent from being perceived (irrespective of what actualy constitutes racism) as racist if you refer to someone directly by ther race and or colour, yet being referred to as white is seemingly ok. [I'm not sure it's ever been considered racist to refer to someone by their colour, as always it's the motives behind the words that matter]
[QUOTE]The inconsistency that means calling someone a "Jock" is a laugh, but a "Paki" is a henous crime. Inconsistency that allows a Black person to use the word ****** in song lyrics is fine, or even to each other is fine, but all manner of ****e falls upon anyone white using the word. [Because it wasn't black people who enslaved each other and used that word to describe themselves]
And the list goes on.
However, I would suggest that the discontent generally hasn't arisen because of the those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living here. That discontent has arisen becasue of the manner in which Government (and I'm not pointing any fingers directly here) have, in effect, dealt with the entire matter.[I agree for decades immigration policy has been muddled and ill-concevied]
btw apolgies for the rubbish edits/quotes, I still haven't figured that function out
Last edited by Martin2005; Jun 9, 2009 at 06:11 PM.
BANNED
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Well to the original question...
Enoch Powel was clearly and demonstrably not right was he, we don't have 'rivers of blood'. We might have some violence and other social problems brought on by immigration, but we certainly have the near civil war that Powel was talking about.
Enoch Powel was clearly and demonstrably not right was he, we don't have 'rivers of blood'. We might have some violence and other social problems brought on by immigration, but we certainly have the near civil war that Powel was talking about.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Well to the original question...
Enoch Powel was clearly and demonstrably not right was he, we don't have 'rivers of blood'.
Enoch Powel was clearly and demonstrably not right was he, we don't have 'rivers of blood'. We might have some violence and other social problems brought on by immigration, but we certainly have the near civil war that Powel was talking about.
Enoch Powel was clearly and demonstrably not right was he, we don't have 'rivers of blood'.
Enoch Powel was clearly and demonstrably not right was he, we don't have 'rivers of blood'. We might have some violence and other social problems brought on by immigration, but we certainly have the near civil war that Powel was talking about.
But does anyone know who coined the title of the speech that its commonly know as?
As the original title of it is "The Birmingham Speech", so was "rivers of blood" something that the press coined after paraphrasing from its poetic referal.
Was that "blood" the actual blood of war and violence? Or was that an inferance of colour of faces found flowing down a busy street (a busy street could be seen as a "river of people" ), meaning that the average street having more immigrants and 2nd/3rd generation decendent of them than people who have ancestory from the UK dating back 100s of years?
The way the speech is written, the context could be taken either way IMO.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
From: Disco, Disco!
Whilst i do not support Griffin or his Party he was set upon and his press conference cancelled due to actions by some - assault effectively.
What will happen is the BNP will prosper from the publicity.
The irony is that if it had been any other party chances are it would have been stopped, the perpetrators arrested and through the court system - as with fatty two jags when he got pelted!
We go on about fascism, however, who is the extremist and the oppressor here - looks like those who got Griffins press conference cancelled by violence and brute force - has a familiar ring, Germany 1920/30's stifiling the right to free speech!
It will only strengthen the BNP and their cause - that is a shame.
TBH i find the far left extreemists just as much of a worry and threat as the BNP and it appears with good reason
What will happen is the BNP will prosper from the publicity.
The irony is that if it had been any other party chances are it would have been stopped, the perpetrators arrested and through the court system - as with fatty two jags when he got pelted!
We go on about fascism, however, who is the extremist and the oppressor here - looks like those who got Griffins press conference cancelled by violence and brute force - has a familiar ring, Germany 1920/30's stifiling the right to free speech!
It will only strengthen the BNP and their cause - that is a shame.
TBH i find the far left extreemists just as much of a worry and threat as the BNP and it appears with good reason
Last edited by The Zohan; Jun 9, 2009 at 07:04 PM.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For anyone who hasn't read it, and that is probably most of the people saying he was *wrong* go see it here - http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/powell_press.doc
The first section is fairly prophetic as it sums up Labour's approach to anything that they are trying to 'bury under the carpet', particularly immigration, over the last decade.
"... The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen." ..."
No, there haven't been 'rivers of blood' but that's not what Enoch actually said. This was the speech 'title' given by the press. Also interesting is the polling taken after the speech (from Rivers of Blood speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).
"... The Gallup Organization took an opinion poll at the end of April and found that 74% agreed with what Powell had said in his speech; 15% disagreed. 69% felt Heath was wrong to sack Powell and 20% believed Heath was right. Before his speech Powell was favoured to replace Heath as Conservative leader by 1%, with Reginald Maudling favoured by 20%; after his speech 24% favoured Powell and 18% Maudling. 83% now felt immigration should be restricted (75% before the speech) and 65% favoured[clarification needed] anti-discrimination legislation.[18] ..."
As I write this about 75% on this poll say Enoch was right - so it would seem to reflect the public attitudes of the time. And, I would say, the poll results if one was taken today amongst the general public. But when have the government actually governed for the electorate???
IMHO there would be much less 'racism' (or any 'ism's!) if we did away with all the discrimination legislation (and quangos administering them - see ya Trevor Philips) and stopped treating people as *special cases*. But hey, when did common sense get in the way of politicians and their pet social engineering projects .... ?
Dave
The first section is fairly prophetic as it sums up Labour's approach to anything that they are trying to 'bury under the carpet', particularly immigration, over the last decade.
"... The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen." ..."
No, there haven't been 'rivers of blood' but that's not what Enoch actually said. This was the speech 'title' given by the press. Also interesting is the polling taken after the speech (from Rivers of Blood speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).
"... The Gallup Organization took an opinion poll at the end of April and found that 74% agreed with what Powell had said in his speech; 15% disagreed. 69% felt Heath was wrong to sack Powell and 20% believed Heath was right. Before his speech Powell was favoured to replace Heath as Conservative leader by 1%, with Reginald Maudling favoured by 20%; after his speech 24% favoured Powell and 18% Maudling. 83% now felt immigration should be restricted (75% before the speech) and 65% favoured[clarification needed] anti-discrimination legislation.[18] ..."
As I write this about 75% on this poll say Enoch was right - so it would seem to reflect the public attitudes of the time. And, I would say, the poll results if one was taken today amongst the general public. But when have the government actually governed for the electorate???
IMHO there would be much less 'racism' (or any 'ism's!) if we did away with all the discrimination legislation (and quangos administering them - see ya Trevor Philips) and stopped treating people as *special cases*. But hey, when did common sense get in the way of politicians and their pet social engineering projects .... ?
Dave
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Another key quote:
And that is one thing that is very controverisal amongst all racists alike (be it the racists being muslim, black or white etc, yes racists aren't all white).
Originally Posted by Enoch
If there were intermarriage on a large scale, the dangers which I foresaw would be very much less.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Well, I voted yes to this one.
Not because I'm racist, and not becasue I see people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds as the problem.
I see the problem as being down to the discontent felt by those who, for the sake of simplicity I will refer to as white British. Becasue if you go far enough back, most of us will be immigrants of some description.
Discontent arising from apparent positive discrimination in favour of anyone who isn't white British.
Discontent arising from seeing police and other authorities afraid or unable to act for fear of being branded racist.
Discontent from people feeling alienated in their own country
Discontent from being perceived (irrespective of what actualy constitutes racism) as racist if you refer to someone directly by ther race and or colour, yet being referred to as white is seemingly ok.
The inconsistency that means calling someone a "Jock" is a laugh, but a "Paki" is a henous crime. Inconsistency that allows a Black person to use the word ****** in song lyrics is fine, or even to each other is fine, but all manner of ****e falls upon anyone white using the word.
And the list goes on.
However, I would suggest that the discontent generally hasn't arisen because of the those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living here. That discontent has arisen becasue of the manner in which Government (and I'm not pointing any fingers directly here) have, in effect, dealt with the entire matter.
Not because I'm racist, and not becasue I see people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds as the problem.
I see the problem as being down to the discontent felt by those who, for the sake of simplicity I will refer to as white British. Becasue if you go far enough back, most of us will be immigrants of some description.
Discontent arising from apparent positive discrimination in favour of anyone who isn't white British.
Discontent arising from seeing police and other authorities afraid or unable to act for fear of being branded racist.
Discontent from people feeling alienated in their own country
Discontent from being perceived (irrespective of what actualy constitutes racism) as racist if you refer to someone directly by ther race and or colour, yet being referred to as white is seemingly ok.
The inconsistency that means calling someone a "Jock" is a laugh, but a "Paki" is a henous crime. Inconsistency that allows a Black person to use the word ****** in song lyrics is fine, or even to each other is fine, but all manner of ****e falls upon anyone white using the word.
And the list goes on.
However, I would suggest that the discontent generally hasn't arisen because of the those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living here. That discontent has arisen becasue of the manner in which Government (and I'm not pointing any fingers directly here) have, in effect, dealt with the entire matter.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
angrynorth
Non Scooby Related
288
Jul 18, 2005 07:34 AM
