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

[Burney]

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

[Pat Vegas]

: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.

[IUFG]

: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.

[Burney]

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.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

: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.

[Burney]

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.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

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?

[Tony C]

So many triggered people on Twitter :clap:

The virtue signallers are the funniest.

[WES]

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

[Burney]

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.

[WES]

: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.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

: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?

[WES]

: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:

[Burney]

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.

[Peter]

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.

[Burney]

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.

[Peter]

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?

[Burney]

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.

[WES]

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.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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.

[Peter]

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'

[Peter]

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.

[Burney]

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.

[WES]

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:

[Ash]

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!

[Burney]

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?

[Burney]

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. ;-)

[WES]

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.

[Burney]

: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.

[Burney]

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:

[WES]

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.

[Burney]

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.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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.

[Burney]

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:

[Sir C]

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:

[Burney]

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?

[bbrian]

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!

[Burney]

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.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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:

I thought that's what I was saying. Isn't the final question basically asking "How on earth could you think that a Paddy was the equal of a Sikh?"

[Sir C]

I thought that's what I was saying. Isn't the final question basically asking "How on earth could you think that a Paddy was the equal of a Sikh?"

It was mentioning them in the same sentence I objected to. it was rather like saying, 'Do you think Dennis Bergkamp is better than Gervinho?'

[WES]

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.

Not at all. I said that for 400 years Canada was almost entirely white and that that has changed in the past 40-50 years. However, I specifically said that that did not make me feel alienated in any way and I have never said and would never say that the immigrants to Canada, regardless of colour, are not Canadian.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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?

I don't. I think everyone should do their best to integrate whilst also adding the best of their own culture to the melting pot that is London.

I want us to have, as a base, the continually evolving British identity, whilst also taking on board the best aspects of all the world's cultures. This gives us stuff like Ska/Two Tone, for example.

And "proper sports" isn't an arbitrary or irrational term. Ours are pwoppa, yank ones aren't.

[Sir C]

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

The doorman at Raffles in Singapore is a huge Sikh chap called, bizarrely, Singh. One day I noticed that he was shivering and paler than me. "Singh," I said, "You're clearly not well, you must go home an rest!" He chuckled at my naivety. "It's nothing at all, just an attack of the malaria."

Tough as old boots.

[Sir C]

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

He's too long in the tooth to fall for my bait, I fear.

[Ash]

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.


Cockney is dying out, Ganps. The yoots speak ... something else now.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It was mentioning them in the same sentence I objected to. it was rather like saying, 'Do you think Dennis Bergkamp is better than Gervinho?'

Point taken.

I have a Sikh mate from Huddersfield who now lives in Stokey but has a broad Yorkshire accent. As I said to him, he now lives in a City where no-one cares about his race or religion by everyone will think he speaks funny until the day he dies.

I just object to the idea that his London-accented kids, born of his white, London missus, would be considered less English by some, simply on the basis of their mixed-race skin colour, than some white northerner.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Cockney is dying out, Ganps. The yoots speak ... something else now.

But would not the Yoot-speak spoken by those born within the sound of the Bow Bells count as a Cockney accent?

[Sir C]

Cockney is dying out, Ganps. The yoots speak ... something else now.

I found it very confusing that the three charming young lads who sat in front of me at th'Emirates back when I used to go looked Asian but spoke Jamaican. For a while I wondered whether they were ethnic Indians who had moved to UK from Kingston or Montego Bay. Turned out they were just young Londoners. :shrug:

[Burney]

I don't. I think everyone should do their best to integrate whilst also adding the best of their own culture to the melting pot that is London.

I want us to have, as a base, the continually evolving British identity, whilst also taking on board the best aspects of all the world's cultures. This gives us stuff like Ska/Two Tone, for example.

And "proper sports" isn't an arbitrary or irrational term. Ours are pwoppa, yank ones aren't.

A continually evolving identity is not an identity at all. It is, in fact, the denial of identity.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

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. ;-)


We are talking about London, not Britain. We are also not talking about the scale of migration to London but what defines being an indigenous Londoner. I'd also take a note out of your comments regarding Hindus and integration. All ethnic groups have groups within that understand what migrating to a new location brings with it and those that do not or do not care. You can't be 100% that one group understand something better than another

Every minority that moves to a culturally different location, will naturally seek out people that they identify with, regardless of which particular religion or racial group they belong to.

Integration is another term I find almost meaningless in this context.

[Ash]

But would not the Yoot-speak spoken by those born within the sound of the Bow Bells count as a Cockney accent?

No, as the Cockney accent was actually an import from Essex. The original, 'London accent' was something closer to today's RP.

And today's Bow Bells equivalent is probably extends to within earshot of the M25. I actually went in St Mary le Bow for the first time the other week. Surprisingly small inside.

[Burney]

We are talking about London, not Britain. We are also not talking about the scale of migration to London but what defines being an indigenous Londoner.

London is the capital city of England and the principal city of the United Kingdom. For it not to reflect the wider country in ethnic, cultural or linguistic terms is an anomalous situation to say the least. And, given the degree to which it now fails to reflect the wider country, it is fair comment to argue that it has ceased in those terms at least to be an English city.


I'd also take a note out of your comments regarding Hindus and integration. All ethnic groups have groups within that understand what migrating to a new location brings with it and those that do not or do not care. You can't be 100% that one group understand something better than another

I can. I can look at the measure of their group's success or failure as represented by their respective per capita income/crime rates/etc, etc.

[IUFG]

Cockney is dying out, Ganps. The yoots speak ... something else now.

innit tho, fam. blud.

like that massive **** on AFTV

[Sir C]

Point taken.

I have a Sikh mate from Huddersfield who now lives in Stokey but has a broad Yorkshire accent. As I said to him, he now lives in a City where no-one cares about his race or religion by everyone will think he speaks funny until the day he dies.

I just object to the idea that his London-accented kids, born of his white, London missus, would be considered less English by some, simply on the basis of their mixed-race skin colour, than some white northerner.

I can't really get my head around it as I've always been treated as an outsider by the indigenous population because I'm 100% bogwog, and I'm as white as they come :shrug:

Come to think of it, I still don't understand bread sauce so I'm not properly English really. :-(

[IUFG]

I can't really get my head around it as I've always been treated as an outsider by the indigenous population because I'm 100% bogwog, and I'm as white as they come :shrug:

Come to think of it, I still don't understand bread sauce so I'm not properly English really. :-(

more worryingly.

it appears that 1% of London town's population is Jockish :yikes:

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E12000007

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

A continually evolving identity is not an identity at all. It is, in fact, the denial of identity.

So your personal identity hasn't changed during your life?

Of course what it means to be British has changed over the centuries. Think in terms of religion alone.

[Burney]

I can't really get my head around it as I've always been treated as an outsider by the indigenous population because I'm 100% bogwog, and I'm as white as they come :shrug:

Come to think of it, I still don't understand bread sauce so I'm not properly English really. :-(

I've always thought of you as a bit swarthy, tbh.

[Sir C]

more worryingly.

it appears that 1% of London town's population is Jockish :yikes:

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E12000007

Christ. None of us are safe in our beds. :-(

[Burney]

So your personal identity hasn't changed during your life?

Of course what it means to be British has changed over the centuries. Think in terms of religion alone.

Over the centuries, yes. Over the space of a few years is a quite different matter. This, in fact, is the great divide in our country now - between the big cities and everywhere else, basically. The real England exists outside the cities - a fact reflected constantly in voting patterns.

I would recommend 'The Road To Somewhere' by David Goodhart on this subject.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Somewhere-Populist-Revolt-Politics/dp/1849047995

[Peter]

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. ;-)

Technically they weren't British. They were Irish and citizens of the United Kingdom.

They were also catholic and some of them didn't even speak bleeding English! And they were very unpopular.

Still are with some people. ditto the Jews.....

[Arsenal Alcoholic Review]

1096

..............................

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

London is the capital city of England and the principal city of the United Kingdom. For it not to reflect the wider country in ethnic, cultural or linguistic terms is an anomalous situation to say the least. And, given the degree to which it now fails to reflect the wider country, it is fair comment to argue that it has ceased in those terms at least to be an English city.[QUOTE]

The point here is that John Cleese said London is no longer an English city. You are saying that it is a fact that there are more non-indigenous people in London than indigenous. You have not provided any basis for this other than what can only amount to a "feeling"



[QUOTE=Burney;4240725]I can. I can look at the measure of their group's success or failure as represented by their respective per capita income/crime rates/etc, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just challenging your method of determination. Your use of the word integration is almost unquantifiable.

[Burney]

Technically they weren't British. They were Irish and citizens of the United Kingdom.

They were also catholic and some of them didn't even speak bleeding English! And they were very unpopular.

Still are with some people. ditto the Jews.....

Sorry, but the Acts of Union with Ireland took place in 1800, so any Irish person between that point and 1922 was, by definition, British.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4240725]London is the capital city of England and the principal city of the United Kingdom. For it not to reflect the wider country in ethnic, cultural or linguistic terms is an anomalous situation to say the least. And, given the degree to which it now fails to reflect the wider country, it is fair comment to argue that it has ceased in those terms at least to be an English city.[QUOTE]

The point here is that John Cleese said London is no longer an English city. You are saying that it is a fact that there are more non-indigenous people in London than indigenous. You have not provided any basis for this other than what can only amount to a "feeling"





I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just challenging your method of determination. Your use of the word integration is almost unquantifiable.

The 2011 Census is the basis for that assertion. Look it up if you don't believe me. :shrug:

[Peter]

Sorry, but the Acts of Union with Ireland took place in 1800, so any Irish person between that point and 1922 was, by definition, British.

The union of the kingdoms of Britain and Ireland. Two countries United under the crown. Just as the current United Kingdom is of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK (a nation state). It is not geographically a part of Britain (by definition) nor is it politically a part of Britain because Britain does not exist as a political entity. Its a region of a nation state.

I did say technically.... :)

[Burney]

The union of the kingdoms of Britain and Ireland. Two countries United under the crown. Just as the current United Kingdom is of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK (a nation state). It is not geographically a part of Britain (by definition) nor is it politically a part of Britain because Britain does not exist as a political entity. Its a region of a nation state.

I did say technically.... :)

But - and this is actually the point - the people were Britons. They were British. Unlike Indians or Africans who were colonised, they were British. So therefore their movement from one part of the Kingdom to another cannot be termed immigration any more than it could if people from Yorkshire moved to London.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

But - and this is actually the point - the people were Britons. They were British. Unlike Indians or Africans who were colonised, they were British. So therefore their movement from one part of the Kingdom to another cannot be termed immigration any more than it could if people from Yorkshire moved to London.

You need to wind yer feckin neck you bog dwelling Mick ... and .............

Relax yer gums!

[Burney]

You need to wind yer feckin neck you bog dwelling Mick ... and .............

Relax yer gums!

:hehe: I think Relax yer fúcking gums is the second great phrase AFTV has given the world alongside 'Bantered us off with shíthousery'

[Peter]

But - and this is actually the point - the people were Britons. They were British. Unlike Indians or Africans who were colonised, they were British. So therefore their movement from one part of the Kingdom to another cannot be termed immigration any more than it could if people from Yorkshire moved to London.

That again is a technicality. They were not indigenous, they were a different religion, many were not primarily English-speaking. None of that is true of people from Yorkshire (apart from the English speaking part perhaps). Their presence here didn't go down well and they faced a great deal of prejudice. They changed the character of parts of London and other cities and gravitated heavily towards manual work and the construction industry. Sounds familiar doesn't it...?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Sorry, but the Acts of Union with Ireland took place in 1800, so any Irish person between that point and 1922 was, by definition, British.

Tell that to someone who only had an Irish peerage.

You remember what Wellington said when he was given one.

[IUFG]

That again is a technicality. They were not indigenous, they were a different religion, many were not primarily English-speaking. None of that is true of people from Yorkshire (apart from the English speaking part perhaps). Their presence here didn't go down well and they faced a great deal of prejudice. They changed the character of parts of London and other cities and gravitated heavily towards manual work and the construction industry. Sounds familiar doesn't it...?

Lets not forget that London, in the main, is quite a dreadful place.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

But - and this is actually the point - the people were Britons. They were British. Unlike Indians or Africans who were colonised, they were British. So therefore their movement from one part of the Kingdom to another cannot be termed immigration any more than it could if people from Yorkshire moved to London.

Fück off, you racist Paddy.

Are you saying that a Maharaja who chose to sign a Subsidiary Alliance with GB, thus making him ruler of an independent state within the British Empire he had willing joined, and who went to Harrow and Oxford and who became and officer and flew planes shooting down the Hun in WW1 is LESS British than some pox-ridden Bogtrotter who got a load of arms off the Germans and tried to stage some Paddy-Prussian revolution that Easter with the express aim of destroying the British empire and handing all the good bits (London, India) to scum like the Hun?

Fück off.

[Peter]

Fück off, you racist Paddy.

Are you saying that a Maharaja who chose to sign a Subsidiary Alliance with GB, thus making him ruler of an independent state within the British Empire he had willing joined, and who went to Harrow and Oxford and who became and officer and flew planes shooting down the Hun in WW1 is LESS British than some pox-ridden Bogtrotter who got a load of arms off the Germans and tried to stage some Paddy-Prussian revolution that Easter with the express aim of destroying the British empire and handing all the good bits (London, India) to scum like the Hun?

Fück off.

I'm not convinced that transferring the governance of India to the Germans was a primary aim of the Easter Rising.

[IUFG]

Fück off, you racist Paddy.

Are you saying that a Maharaja who chose to sign a Subsidiary Alliance with GB, thus making him ruler of an independent state within the British Empire he had willing joined, and who went to Harrow and Oxford and who became and officer and flew planes shooting down the Hun in WW1 is LESS British than some pox-ridden Bogtrotter who got a load of arms off the Germans and tried to stage some Paddy-Prussian revolution that Easter with the express aim of destroying the British empire and handing all the good bits (London, India) to scum like the Hun?

Fück off.

fine work, there GG :thumbup:

[Burney]

Fück off, you racist Paddy.

Are you saying that a Maharaja who chose to sign a Subsidiary Alliance with GB, thus making him ruler of an independent state within the British Empire he had willing joined, and who went to Harrow and Oxford and who became and officer and flew planes shooting down the Hun in WW1 is LESS British than some pox-ridden Bogtrotter who got a load of arms off the Germans and tried to stage some Paddy-Prussian revolution that Easter with the express aim of destroying the British empire and handing all the good bits (London, India) to scum like the Hun?

Fück off.

:yawn: That would be the 'bogtrotters' who formed the backbone of the British Army for the 19th Century, would it? Or maybe you mean the ones who built the infrastructure of this country? Or maybe the 210,000 Irishmen who fought for Britain in the First World War? Were they were more British than some pampered wog princeling who happened to know which knife and fork to use? Yes. Yes, they were.

Now píss off back to school you thick ****.

[Ash]

Fück off, you racist Paddy.

Are you saying that a Maharaja who chose to sign a Subsidiary Alliance with GB, thus making him ruler of an independent state within the British Empire he had willing joined, and who went to Harrow and Oxford and who became and officer and flew planes shooting down the Hun in WW1 is LESS British than some pox-ridden Bogtrotter who got a load of arms off the Germans and tried to stage some Paddy-Prussian revolution that Easter with the express aim of destroying the British empire and handing all the good bits (London, India) to scum like the Hun?

Fück off.

Entertaining stuff, Ganps, but just one thing: I thought you liked being ruled by the Hun. :-D

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

:yawn: That would be the 'bogtrotters' who formed the backbone of the British Army for the 19th Century, would it? Or maybe you mean the ones who built the infrastructure of this country? Or maybe the 210,000 Irishmen who fought for Britain in the First World War? Were they were more British than some pampered wog princeling who happened to know which knife and fork to use? Yes. Yes, they were.

Now píss off back to school you thick ****.

WW2. 2.5m Heroic Indians volunteered to defeat fascism in whichever continent we found it.

How many bogtrotters volunteered? No, they were signing the condolence book when Adolf died.

First British units to stage a conuter-attack in WW1 and hold the ground taken? Oirish Guards? No. The Indian Corps.

What happened when the Oirish and Brittish went into Nepal 200 years ago? Arses handed to them by the Gurkhas.

Indian Mutiny? Oirish and British shîtting themselves (literally - look how Havelock died) before the noble Sikhs and heroic Gurkhas rode to their rescue.

Yet were the Paddies grateful? No. When my boys were heroically fighting in the Middle East they blew up a Dublin post office or something and tried to hand Delhi to the Germans.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Entertaining stuff, Ganps, but just one thing: I thought you liked being ruled by the Hun. :-D

Nah, I like ruling them.

The EU and QMV is basically the way we kept up our occupation since the Berlin Wall fell.

We've got our way in these votes far more than Germany has. (Or France, or pretty much anyone else. Like 95% of the time.)

We pool sovereignty in this modern world. I mean, if I have to pool it with Sperzers, Norverners, Taffies and Jocks, why not with Frogs, Hun and Oirish?

As long as we have nukes and they don't, they can never get uppity again.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Look it up if you don't believe me. :shrug:

I'm not reading back through all of the posts on her but did you define what is indigenous?

[AFC East]

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.

You don’t know many immigrants do you?

Pulling up,the laddder seems to be a near universal trait.

[AFC East]

Lets not forget that London, in the main, is quite a dreadful place.

But it’s the only place in England anyone from outside would chose to live in. Have you eaten outside London and Cumbria?