I see John Cleese has unleashed a shítstorm by the simple expedient of stating a fact

:hehe: He's clearly reached the 'No longer gives a fúck' stage of life, god bless him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:hehe: He's clearly reached the 'No longer gives a fúck' stage of life, god bless him.

---

That's why I left.

His last point doesn't really make sense though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:hehe: He's clearly reached the 'No longer gives a fúck' stage of life, god bless him.

---

Man fúcks off from England to foreign country. Complains about forriners in England... :rolleyes:

He's no better than those píssed up Jocks in London pubs telling everyone how shít England is and how wonderful Scotland is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

Man fúcks off from England to foreign country. Complains about forriners in England... :rolleyes:

He's no better than those píssed up Jocks in London pubs telling everyone how shít England is and how wonderful Scotland is.

---

He's not 'complaining', he's pointing out the fact that London is now by some distance a majority non-indigenous city. That is, quite simply, a fact. And it is a fact that those who can remember London as an English city have a right to feel rather ambivalent about.

And where he lives is irrelevant to all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:hehe: He's clearly reached the 'No longer gives a fúck' stage of life, god bless him.

---

I do the opposite. Immigrant in a foreign land telling Swedes they let too many immigrants in. Although in my defence there’s a lot of settled immigrants who came here in the late 90s/early 00s who say the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

That's why I left.

His last point doesn't really make sense though.

---

It makes sense in so far as to say that someone who has benefited from freedom of movement by coming to London is more likely to support Remain than Leave. It also makes sense in that those with no history in this country are less likely to be affected by appeals to our traditions of independence, sovereignty and democratic representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

He's not 'complaining', he's pointing out the fact that London is now by some distance a majority non-indigenous city. That is, quite simply, a fact. .

---

Saying it over and over doesn't make something a fact. It is only a fact when it can be backed up by numbers.

Did he show how he reached his conclusion?

So many triggered people on Twitter :clap:

The virtue signallers are the funniest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

Saying it over and over doesn't make something a fact. It is only a fact when it can be backed up by numbers.

Did he show how he reached his conclusion?

---

A quick google shows that according to the 2011 census 36.7% of Londoners were foreign born.

No idea what it is now but a jump to > 50% in 8 years would seem pretty surprising

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

A quick google shows that according to the 2011 census 36.7% of Londoners were foreign born.

No idea what it is now but a jump to > 50% in 8 years would seem pretty surprising

---

:rolleyes:

Non-indigenous does not mean foreign-born.

And, by the way, 36.7% of your capital's population being foreign-born is an absolutely fúcking massive number. And, given our immigration rates over the last 8 years, plus white flight, plus the fact that the vast majority of migrants will gravitate to London because that's where the jobs are, a rate of 50% is by no means out of the question by the time of the next census in 2021.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:rolleyes:

Non-indigenous does not mean foreign-born.

And, by the way, 36.7% of your capital's population being foreign-born is an absolutely fúcking massive number. And, given our immigration rates over the last 8 years, plus white flight, plus the fact that the vast majority of migrants will gravitate to London because that's where the jobs are, a rate of 50% is by no means out of the question by the time of the next census in 2021.

---

What does it mean in this context then? Non-white? Non-white and non Anglo Saxon?

I'm afraid I can only take it seriously if it was intended to mean foreign born. Otherwise it's just a silly, antiquated thought process imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:rolleyes:

Non-indigenous does not mean foreign-born.

And, by the way, 36.7% of your capital's population being foreign-born is an absolutely fúcking massive number. And, given our immigration rates over the last 8 years, plus white flight, plus the fact that the vast majority of migrants will gravitate to London because that's where the jobs are, a rate of 50% is by no means out of the question by the time of the next census in 2021.

---

What do we define as non-indigenous?

London has been home to foreign settlers for centuries. Where do we draw the line as saying that non-indigenous becomes indigenous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:rolleyes:

Non-indigenous does not mean foreign-born.

And, by the way, 36.7% of your capital's population being foreign-born is an absolutely fúcking massive number. And, given our immigration rates over the last 8 years, plus white flight, plus the fact that the vast majority of migrants will gravitate to London because that's where the jobs are, a rate of 50% is by no means out of the question by the time of the next census in 2021.

---

BTW, Toronto has been pretty close to 50% immigrants for years and is still one of best cities I have ever been to in terms of standard of living so I fail to see how the stat is relevant to anything. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

What does it mean in this context then? Non-white? Non-white and non Anglo Saxon?

I'm afraid I can only take it seriously if it was intended to mean foreign born. Otherwise it's just a silly, antiquated thought process imo.

---

It's not a tough concept to grasp. The indigenous peoples of this nation are white and speak English as a first language. Such people make up 87% of the country's population. That they should now be in a significant minority in their nation's capital is an extraordinary thing. That such change has occurred in just 60 or 70 years is mind-blowing. The tendency to try and dismiss people who express concern or disquiet at such staggering demographic change as racist or antiquated is dishonest. Cleese is correct. London is no longer predominantly inhabited by indigenous (ie white and speaking English as a first language) people. Thus, London is no longer an English city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

What do we define as non-indigenous?

London has been home to foreign settlers for centuries. Where do we draw the line as saying that non-indigenous becomes indigenous?

---

Which is where it stops being a fact and becomes completely reliant on subjective parameters. For instance, how do you factor in northerners? They shouldn't be here....

That said, 36% foreign born is quite high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

What do we define as non-indigenous?

London has been home to foreign settlers for centuries. Where do we draw the line as saying that non-indigenous becomes indigenous?

---

Being home to foreign settlers and them and their children being in the overwhelming majority are two very different things.

And this country's 'melting pot' history is largely balls, btw. Up until the mid-20th century, the ethnic make-up of this country was massively homogeneous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's not a tough concept to grasp. The indigenous peoples of this nation are white and speak English as a first language. Such people make up 87% of the country's population. That they should now be in a significant minority in their nation's capital is an extraordinary thing. That such change has occurred in just 60 or 70 years is mind-blowing. The tendency to try and dismiss people who express concern or disquiet at such staggering demographic change as racist or antiquated is dishonest. Cleese is correct. London is no longer predominantly inhabited by indigenous (ie white and speaking English as a first language) people. Thus, London is no longer an English city.

---

So if it was full of yanks and aussies it would be ok? But not black people who have lived here for four generations? That makes it a non English city?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

BTW, Toronto has been pretty close to 50% immigrants for years and is still one of best cities I have ever been to in terms of standard of living so I fail to see how the stat is relevant to anything. :shrug:

---

This rather ignores the fact that Canada is a country founded by immigration. The UK is not. Not comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's not a tough concept to grasp. The indigenous peoples of this nation are white and speak English as a first language. Such people make up 87% of the country's population. That they should now be in a significant minority in their nation's capital is an extraordinary thing. That such change has occurred in just 60 or 70 years is mind-blowing. The tendency to try and dismiss people who express concern or disquiet at such staggering demographic change as racist or antiquated is dishonest. Cleese is correct. London is no longer predominantly inhabited by indigenous (ie white and speaking English as a first language) people. Thus, London is no longer an English city.

---

Wow. You just said that non-white people can't be English. Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's not a tough concept to grasp. The indigenous peoples of this nation are white and speak English as a first language. Such people make up 87% of the country's population. That they should now be in a significant minority in their nation's capital is an extraordinary thing. That such change has occurred in just 60 or 70 years is mind-blowing. The tendency to try and dismiss people who express concern or disquiet at such staggering demographic change as racist or antiquated is dishonest. Cleese is correct. London is no longer predominantly inhabited by indigenous (ie white and speaking English as a first language) people. Thus, London is no longer an English city.

---

Why should skin colour make a difference?

Why should the London born and bred descendant of a white European immigrant be considered more English than a London born and bred black chap? That's racism, pure and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

Wow. You just said that non-white people can't be English. Interesting.

---

No different to Jez saying London born and bred Jews aren't really English, tbf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Being home to foreign settlers and them and their children being in the overwhelming majority are two very different things.

And this country's 'melting pot' history is largely balls, btw. Up until the mid-20th century, the ethnic make-up of this country was massively homogeneous.

---

Hang on, don't move the goalposts. We are talking about London. There were black immigrants in London in the 18th century. The 19th and early 20th century saw large scale immigration from Ireland and European Jewry, many of whom didn't speak English as a first language and were certainly not treated as homogenous arrivals.

If we are going to restrict it to skin colour then it is starting to feel a little 'race-based'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

Wow. You just said that non-white people can't be English. Interesting.

---

No... he said they weren't indigenous. Which is true.

However, he did say a lack of indigenous people means London isn't an English city. Of course, it is and it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

So if it was full of yanks and aussies it would be ok? But not black people who have lived here for four generations? That makes it a non English city?

---

In terms of integration, yes, it would be preferable. Failing that, it would be better if it were white, Christian Europeans. The reason being that such groups for cultural and religious reasons tend to integrate more successfully into a white, Christian, European culture. In fact, such groups integrate so successfully that they are largely indistinguishable from the indigenous population within a generation.

Let's not pretend race is not a factor in emphasising difference. It is - indeed is encouraged as such by much of the woke left. So you can't really blame white British people if they feel alienated in the city in which their forebears have lived for hundreds of years because the ethnic and racial make-up of that city have changed so precipitously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

No... he said they weren't indigenous. Which is true.

However, he did say a lack of indigenous people means London isn't an English city. Of course, it is and it isn't.

---

He said that London is not an English city because the majority of people are not white. Hardly an enormous logical leap to non-white people not being English. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Being home to foreign settlers and them and their children being in the overwhelming majority are two very different things.

And this country's 'melting pot' history is largely balls, btw. Up until the mid-20th century, the ethnic make-up of this country was massively homogeneous.

---

:nono: Plenty of furrins, like some of my ancestors, came to London in the 19th Century because of the trade links. Then the Huge Knots (probably another ancestor there) 150+ years before that seeking life & liberty free from savage persecution. :-)

That said, 36% foreign born is quite high. Probably more than that by now, in fact, judging by how surprised I sometimes am to hear English being spoken. NTTAWWT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Why should skin colour make a difference?

Why should the London born and bred descendant of a white European immigrant be considered more English than a London born and bred black chap? That's racism, pure and simple.

---

Let's not be naive. Because racial difference matters when it comes to integration and integration is the key to successful immigation. The child of white Euro immigrants is indistinguishable from the natives in a generation. The black guy is not. There is a clear visual clue that his forebears did not come from these islands and in a country that is still 87% white, that matters.

If you want to call it racism, fine. But switch the roles. Would a white person in Delhi be considered Indian by the rest of the population because he could trace his ancestry back a few generations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Hang on, don't move the goalposts. We are talking about London. There were black immigrants in London in the 18th century. The 19th and early 20th century saw large scale immigration from Ireland and European Jewry, many of whom didn't speak English as a first language and were certainly not treated as homogenous arrivals.

If we are going to restrict it to skin colour then it is starting to feel a little 'race-based'

---

I wouldn't restrict it to skin colour. There are very successful immigrant groups who are non-white - the Hindus being the best example. However, their success has been based on strenuous efforts to integrate with the indigenous culture.

And those 'large scale' immigrations you mention are nothing - NOTHING - on the scale of what has happened in London since 1997.

Also, it's worth noting that Irish people were actually British in the 19th and early 20th century - so not immigrants. You Brits forget that so easily. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Let's not be naive. Because racial difference matters when it comes to integration and integration is the key to successful immigation. The child of white Euro immigrants is indistinguishable from the natives in a generation. The black guy is not. There is a clear visual clue that his forebears did not come from these islands and in a country that is still 87% white, that matters.

If you want to call it racism, fine. But switch the roles. Would a white person in Delhi be considered Indian by the rest of the population because he could trace his ancestry back a few generations?

---

I don't think it's racist to make the point you're making, actually. I would reserve the use of that term for something more significant.

I don't agree with your view that people might feel alienated because they live in a different looking world than their forebears. We have no idea how are ancestors felt as we didn't grow up with them, and in their circumstances. Alienation would have to be part of your own personal experience, I think. And I grew up in an entirely white town but when I moved to Toronto I loved it and felt in no way alienated. And I'm also not buying the land of immigrants theory. Canada was first settled in the 16th century and for over 400 years was almost entirely white European and the change in Toronto is relatively recent i.e the past 30-40 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

:nono: Plenty of furrins, like some of my ancestors, came to London in the 19th Century because of the trade links. Then the Huge Knots (probably another ancestor there) 150+ years before that seeking life & liberty free from savage persecution. :-)

That said, 36% foreign born is quite high. Probably more than that by now, in fact, judging by how surprised I sometimes am to hear English being spoken. NTTAWWT!

---

Yes, but as I pointed out to p, those waves of immigration were tiny in comparison to the immigration that has taken place in the last 25 years.

And whether there is anything wrong with it is not the question. There is certainly something remarkable about it and it hardly seems unreasonable for someone to conclude that when English is customarily not being heard in a city, that that city may not be English anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

I don't think it's racist to make the point you're making, actually. I would reserve the use of that term for something more significant.

I don't agree with your view that people might feel alienated because they live in a different looking world than their forebears. We have no idea how are ancestors felt as we didn't grow up with them, and in their circumstances. Alienation would have to be part of your own personal experience, I think. And I grew up in an entirely white town but when I moved to Toronto I loved it and felt in no way alienated. And I'm also not buying the land of immigrants theory. Canada was first settled in the 16th century and for over 400 years was almost entirely white European and the change in Toronto is relatively recent i.e the past 30-40 years.

---

Isn't that interesting? When you speak about Toronto, you speak of it being 50% immigrants and then contrast it with Canada's white history.
The obvious conclusion being that you instinctively equate the word 'immigrant' with the condition of not being white. :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Isn't that interesting? When you speak about Toronto, you speak of it being 50% immigrants and then contrast it with Canada's white history.
The obvious conclusion being that you instinctively equate the word 'immigrant' with the condition of not being white. :hehe:

---

Yes, my experience in Toronto is that immigrants are almost entirely non-white. Other than the odd Brit I don't think I ever met any immigrants in Toronto that were not white. Not sure what your point is, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

Yes, my experience in Toronto is that immigrants are almost entirely non-white. Other than the odd Brit I don't think I ever met any immigrants in Toronto that were not white. Not sure what your point is, actually.

---

You are conceding that there is such a thing as a 'white country' - even after just a couple of hundred years - and are instinctively 'othering' those who don't fit that template. You may not be doing it negatively, but you are doing it. That instinct (in a larger form) is precisely what makes people feel alienated when the ethnicity of their city or country changes significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Let's not be naive. Because racial difference matters when it comes to integration and integration is the key to successful immigation. The child of white Euro immigrants is indistinguishable from the natives in a generation. The black guy is not. There is a clear visual clue that his forebears did not come from these islands and in a country that is still 87% white, that matters.

If you want to call it racism, fine. But switch the roles. Would a white person in Delhi be considered Indian by the rest of the population because he could trace his ancestry back a few generations?

---

Bøllocks. It's all about accent to me.

If someone speaks London, then are more London that someone who doesn't, irrespective of skin colour.

If you've got a black man with a cockney accent, a Sikh with a cockney accent and a white man with a Manc accent, which one should be sent to the camps? Not rocket science.

Some of us are bright enough to know that most of us have some non-native blood in us somewhere, and it's no different if that blood comes from Europe or a non-white place, as long as they speak and sound like the norm.

We are living in an increasingly globalised world and in 1,000 years most people will be coffee coloured.

Mum mum has some German blood. My beloved has some Italian. Why would a black Londoner be less English than us if he speaks with London accent?

And yes, the Anglo-Indian caste is considered Indian, by the public and by the constitution. But you can't really use India as an example for two reasons.

Firstly, they don't have as multicultural country as we do. And secondly, they are really racist against black people. I tried to go into a cheap bar with a Nigerian mate 20 years ago in Delhi. I was dressed like a crusty, he was dressed in shirt sleeves and suit trousers, looking smart. I could get in, he couldn't.

But who really thinks everyone here who's white is fully British? Aren't you a Paddy? Why is that better than a black man or a Sikh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

In terms of integration, yes, it would be preferable. Failing that, it would be better if it were white, Christian Europeans. The reason being that such groups for cultural and religious reasons tend to integrate more successfully into a white, Christian, European culture. In fact, such groups integrate so successfully that they are largely indistinguishable from the indigenous population within a generation.

Let's not pretend race is not a factor in emphasising difference. It is - indeed is encouraged as such by much of the woke left. So you can't really blame white British people if they feel alienated in the city in which their forebears have lived for hundreds of years because the ethnic and racial make-up of that city have changed so precipitously.

---

Blacks and Indians play proper sports. Yanks don't. So I know which one I wouldn't be able to integrate with.

I watched the 2011 CWC final in Guresh and Karla Patel's corner shop off Brixton Hill, with their family, another Indian and a West Indian. Any Septics there? No. So they don't make the effort to integrate and should fück off back where they came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Bøllocks. It's all about accent to me.

If someone speaks London, then are more London that someone who doesn't, irrespective of skin colour.

If you've got a black man with a cockney accent, a Sikh with a cockney accent and a white man with a Manc accent, which one should be sent to the camps? Not rocket science.

Some of us are bright enough to know that most of us have some non-native blood in us somewhere, and it's no different if that blood comes from Europe or a non-white place, as long as they speak and sound like the norm.

We are living in an increasingly globalised world and in 1,000 years most people will be coffee coloured.

Mum mum has some German blood. My beloved has some Italian. Why would a black Londoner be less English than us if he speaks with London accent?

And yes, the Anglo-Indian caste is considered Indian, by the public and by the constitution. But you can't really use India as an example for two reasons.

Firstly, they don't have as multicultural country as we do. And secondly, they are really racist against black people. I tried to go into a cheap bar with a Nigerian mate 20 years ago in Delhi. I was dressed like a crusty, he was dressed in shirt sleeves and suit trousers, looking smart. I could get in, he couldn't.

But who really thinks everyone here who's white is fully British? Aren't you a Paddy? Why is that better than a black man or a Sikh?

---

But we didn't ask for a multicultural country. :shrug: We had one imposed on us.

And nobody said anything about 'better'.

By the way, I do love it when white people claim not to care about ethnicity. It's such a fúcking lie. :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Bøllocks. It's all about accent to me.


But who really thinks everyone here who's white is fully British? Aren't you a Paddy? Why is that better than a black man or a Sikh?

---

Woooah, slow down there big boy. You can't compare Paddies to Sikhs. Sikhs are proud, dignified, natural warriors. Paddies are spud-munching alcoholic wife abusers. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Blacks and Indians play proper sports. Yanks don't. So I know which one I wouldn't be able to integrate with.

I watched the 2011 CWC final in Guresh and Karla Patel's corner shop off Brixton Hill, with their family, another Indian and a West Indian. Any Septics there? No. So they don't make the effort to integrate and should fück off back where they came from.

---

I'm sure you'd accept that these terms are utterly arbitrary and irrational. Given which, why would you decry reasons for refusing to integrate based on race that are equally (or possibly less) arbitrary and irrational?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Woooah, slow down there big boy. You can't compare Paddies to Sikhs. Sikhs are proud, dignified, natural warriors. Paddies are spud-munching alcoholic wife abusers. :shrug:

---

Nice one Sir C...maybe that'll drag Mr Williams back onboard!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Woooah, slow down there big boy. You can't compare Paddies to Sikhs. Sikhs are proud, dignified, natural warriors. Paddies are spud-munching alcoholic wife abusers. :shrug:

---

Sikhs are pretty mental, tbh. And I've seen them make short work of a bottle of Scotch.