David Cameron was drawn into a row over race last night after a candidate in a high-profile Parliamentary seat praised Enoch Powell for his notorious 'rivers of blood' speech, which warned that Britain was 'literally mad' to allow widespread immigration.

 

Days after Cameron was praised by the head of the Equality Commission for tackling the issue of immigration in a non-racial way, Labour called on the Tory leader to remove Nigel Hastilow as a prospective Conservative candidate for declaring that Powell was 'right'.

 

See article here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/st...2205014,00.html

 

Latest news Nigel Hastilow has quit, or was sacked.

Political correctness gone mad by Cameron :manson:

 

 

Political correctness gone mad by Cameron :manson:

Well would YOU want to elect someone after they said something like that? :mellow:

Well would YOU want to elect someone after they said something like that? :mellow:

 

He has not made any racist remarks, he has merely said publicly what millions of people up and down the country say privately and down the pub and at dinner parties

 

I don't think bringing in immigration controls is being racist it is common sense and I don't think this makes him unfit to stand as an MP

 

He hasn't called for blacks and asians to be sent home or anything, that would be vile but he has said that the current level of immigration is unsustainable which is absolutely correct

 

I fail to see where he has been racist

I fail to see where he has been racist

Same here,

 

The guy wants to stop people comming in from Italy, Spain, Africa, India, Japan etc. to stop England 'over-flowing'. Good on him.

Enoch Powell's famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech, as delivered in Birmingham on 20 April 1968. I have highlighted the pertinent areas. Agree or disagree (and ignoring the terminology of course) - there's little doubting that he was, actually, correct in his predictions.

 

Workers came out and marched in support of Powell, but he was sacked from his Shadow Cabinet position by Edward Heath.

 

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." Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

 

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

 

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

 

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

 

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

 

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

 

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

 

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions he reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

 

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

 

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

 

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. There are not, and never have been, immigrants.

 

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

 

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

 

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

 

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

 

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

 

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

 

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

 

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

 

'Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

 

'The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

 

'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'

 

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

 

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

 

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

 

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.' All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

 

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

 

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

 

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Edited November 5, 200717 yr by russt68

sorry, but i fail 2 see what is so racisit

Political correctness gone mad by Cameron :manson:

 

How is it "political correctness gone mad" for a leader of a political party to say that someone's views are not sufficiently consistent with party policy for them to be able to stand as a candidate for that party? Would it be "political correctness gone mad" if Gordon Brown sacked a candidate who called for the top 1000 companies in the country to be nationalised and for Britain to call for a revival of the Warsaw Pact with a view to becoming a member?

 

If you agree with this idiot, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in the BNP or their besuited fellow travellers in UKIP.

Enoch Powell's famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech, as delivered in Birmingham on 20 April 1968. I have highlighted the pertinent areas. Agree or disagree (and ignoring the terminology of course) - there's little doubting that he was, actually, correct in his predictions.

 

Workers came out and marched in support of Powell, but he was sacked from his Shadow Cabinet position by Edward Heath.

 

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." Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

 

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

 

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

 

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

 

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

 

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

 

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

 

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions he reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

 

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

 

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

 

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. There are not, and never have been, immigrants.

 

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

 

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

 

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

 

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

 

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

 

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

 

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

 

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

 

'Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

 

'The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

 

'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'

 

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

 

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

 

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

 

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.' All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

 

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

 

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

 

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

 

 

There's one or two grains of truth in what Powell was saying, unfortunately he chose to spoil the one or two fair points with a lot of ignorant, racist bile about "negroes" and "grinning faced piccaninnies", and trying to justify the rancid, racist opinions of his constituents.... His axe to grind was with the Race Relations act which he bitterly opposed, I dont think any sensible person today would seek to deny that that act was a totally necessary thing at the time, you cant have people saying to someone that they wont let them a flat or a room because "No Blacks, no dogs, No Irish...", that is totally unnacceptable in a civilised society, and Powell would defend the rights of racist landlords and hoteliers to do exactly this.. Which is basically the reason why I have little truck with anything the man says, he has no credibility in my eyes because he was a racist through and through, it's obvious to me that he wanted every single black or asian person out of the country, whether they were "good" immigrants or "bad" immigrants, so that is why I give very little credence to anything the man says... I'm sure the holocaust denial theories of Dr David Irvine have one or two grains of truth in them too, but that doesn't mean I would give the man the time of day....

 

Russ, you attack anyone who is remotely homophobic, yet you seem to defend the rights of a man who was clearly a racist, I'm sorry, but I just dont get it.... You honestly think that if he'd had his way, Powell wouldn't want homosexuals on the very next boat or plane out of the country after all the immigrants...? Dont believe that for a minute, racism and homophobia are two sides of the same coin IMO....

 

As to this other guy, well, he's just another example of a typical tory tw@t just looking to get his name in the paper by making one or two "ever-so-shocking" comments as an attempt at attention-seeking... And yet more proof of the Tory party's totally un-electability.... Is he racist, well, I dunno to be honest, but he's certainly an idiot... At least Powell, racist though he was, actually thought through his arguments and his fierce intellect is undeniable (just a shame Powell didn't put that intellect to better use...); this guy's just an ignorant, "rent-a-quote" Tory d!*kh**d who's trying to gain political capital out of someone who was of a much greater intellect than he was. Which, in many ways, is probably the worst thing about this whole affair.....

If you agree with this idiot, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in the BNP or their besuited fellow travellers in UKIP.

 

Where has the guy been racist ? what has anything he said got to do with the BNP who ARE racist and have a policy of repatriation for blacks and asians, how can you compare this guy to the BNP ? he is simply saying that Britain can't be a free for all and how is he wrong ? it is NOT racist to say that immigration controls be bought in it is practical economic common sense, I believe in a multi cultural society but there comes a point where a notice must come up saying "Britain is full - No more vacancies" and it is not racist to say that !

 

I believe that immigrants now should only be allowed in if they are qualified professionals - doctors, solicitors, dentists etc or if they have a minimum of £250,000 in assets and can pay their own way, similar to the system Australia have

 

This guy should be fukkin Tory leader not kicked out as a candidate

 

 

-

 

doctors, solicitors, dentists etc or if they have a minimum of £250,000 in assets and can pay their own way, similar to the system Australia have

 

What a load of bloody nonsense you spout sometimes Craig... As if the majority of BRITISH doctors, nurses, dentists, etc actually have a quarter million quid in the bank..... So you would deny an eminently qualified professional doctor, nurse or dentist from, say, India, Cuba or Bangladesh entry to the UK just purely on the fact that they weren't rich...?? Utterly ridiculous..... -_- Now that would be a wholly discriminatory practice, because it would almost certainly favour professionals from the likes of the US, Australia or Canada who may not necessarily be better doctors, nurses or dentists...

 

Okay, I do agree that with the expansion of the EU, we may need to curb entry for non-EU citizens, but what you are suggesting is utterly absurd, countries like Cuba and India send doctors to disaster areas all over the world and they are extremely good doctors with the sort of emergency medicine experience that this country desperately needs, you would deny them access to a job here just because they're not millionaires or whatever....???

There's one or two grains of truth in what Powell was saying, unfortunately he chose to spoil the one or two fair points with a lot of ignorant, racist bile about "negroes" and "grinning faced piccaninnies", and trying to justify the rancid, racist opinions of his constituents.... His axe to grind was with the Race Relations act which he bitterly opposed, I dont think any sensible person today would seek to deny that that act was a totally necessary thing at the time, you cant have people saying to someone that they wont let them a flat or a room because "No Blacks, no dogs, No Irish...", that is totally unnacceptable in a civilised society, and Powell would defend the rights of racist landlords and hoteliers to do exactly this.. Which is basically the reason why I have little truck with anything the man says, he has no credibility in my eyes because he was a racist through and through, it's obvious to me that he wanted every single black or asian person out of the country, whether they were "good" immigrants or "bad" immigrants, so that is why I give very little credence to anything the man says... I'm sure the holocaust denial theories of Dr David Irvine have one or two grains of truth in them too, but that doesn't mean I would give the man the time of day....

 

Russ, you attack anyone who is remotely homophobic, yet you seem to defend the rights of a man who was clearly a racist, I'm sorry, but I just dont get it.... You honestly think that if he'd had his way, Powell wouldn't want homosexuals on the very next boat or plane out of the country after all the immigrants...? Dont believe that for a minute, racism and homophobia are two sides of the same coin IMO....

 

As to this other guy, well, he's just another example of a typical tory tw@t just looking to get his name in the paper by making one or two "ever-so-shocking" comments as an attempt at attention-seeking... And yet more proof of the Tory party's totally un-electability.... Is he racist, well, I dunno to be honest, but he's certainly an idiot... At least Powell, racist though he was, actually thought through his arguments and his fierce intellect is undeniable (just a shame Powell didn't put that intellect to better use...); this guy's just an ignorant, "rent-a-quote" Tory d!*kh**d who's trying to gain political capital out of someone who was of a much greater intellect than he was. Which, in many ways, is probably the worst thing about this whole affair.....

 

 

again you are not equating the past correctly. in 1968 people were racist by default, this was before racial equality. ok by TODAYS standards his speech was racist, but not by 1968's!

What a load of bloody nonsense you spout sometimes Craig... As if the majority of BRITISH doctors, nurses, dentists, etc actually have a quarter million quid in the bank..... So you would deny an eminently qualified professional doctor, nurse or dentist from, say, India, Cuba or Bangladesh entry to the UK just purely on the fact that they weren't rich...?? Utterly ridiculous..... -_- Now that would be a wholly discriminatory practice, because it would almost certainly favour professionals from the likes of the US, Australia or Canada who may not necessarily be better doctors, nurses or dentists...

 

Okay, I do agree that with the expansion of the EU, we may need to curb entry for non-EU citizens, but what you are suggesting is utterly absurd, countries like Cuba and India send doctors to disaster areas all over the world and they are extremely good doctors with the sort of emergency medicine experience that this country desperately needs, you would deny them access to a job here just because they're not millionaires or whatever....???

 

Or not and mate

 

If someone is a qualified doctor or whatever let them in, if someone is not qualified as a professional but has money then let them in, I never said a professional WITH £250,000

He has not made any racist remarks, he has merely said publicly what millions of people up and down the country say privately and down the pub and at dinner parties

 

I don't think bringing in immigration controls is being racist it is common sense and I don't think this makes him unfit to stand as an MP

 

He hasn't called for blacks and asians to be sent home or anything, that would be vile but he has said that the current level of immigration is unsustainable which is absolutely correct

 

I fail to see where he has been racist

 

absolutely correct craig.

 

there are millions up and down the country, englishmen, brits, who have been intimidated into silence... you cant say anything about immigration because youll be branded a racist. people are sick and tired of our culture and way of life being eroded, and many who didnt like what powel said are now re-assesing the situation. that doesnt make us racist, it doesnt make us bnp supporters, we are just people worried about the consequences of mass, unchecked immigration.

again you are not equating the past correctly. in 1968 people were racist by default, this was before racial equality. ok by TODAYS standards his speech was racist, but not by 1968's!

 

Goes to credibility mate... I care not if everyone was a "racist by default" in '68, the world was changing in the late 60s, and dinosaurs like Powell were part of the problem, and the whole reason why things had to change. The man spoiled his one or two good points by spouting a lot of utterly offensive garbage, that's my problem with him.... His speech gave credence to movements like the National Front in the 70s and now the BNP... Oh yeah, and the small matter of that arch arsehole Eric Clapton once proclaiming at a gig in which he was playing THE BLACK MAN'S MUSIC that he was all the way with Powell.... What utter indefensible, repugnant hypocrisy.... <_<

 

Like I say, I dont fault the man's intellect or his oratory skills, I just despise everything he stood for and what it "inspired".....

and many who didnt like what powel said are now re-assesing the situation.

 

You can surely "re-assess" opinions without bringing into play quotations from racist old dinosaurs like Powell though...... And if you cant, well, maybe you should shut the hell up.....

 

I have my own serious issues with Zionism, the state of Israel, the way that Jewish Lobby groups completely abuse the whole playing of the "holocaust card" to get their own way; but I would NEVER, EVER say that "Hmmm, maybe Hitler did have a point about them Jews.....".....

You can surely "re-assess" opinions without bringing into play quotations from racist old dinosaurs like Powell though...... And if you cant, well, maybe you should shut the hell up.....

 

I have my own serious issues with Zionism, the state of Israel, the way that Jewish Lobby groups completely abuse the whole playing of the "holocaust card" to get their own way; but I would NEVER, EVER say that "Hmmm, maybe Hitler did have a point about them Jews.....".....

 

theres no comparison between a mass murderer and a racist politician! :lol:

 

its more about updating your views then re-assesing his speech. there will come a time when there ARE too many immigrants, you can only push people so far.

theres no comparison between a mass murderer and a racist politician! :lol:

 

Umm, who did Hitler actually physically kill....?? No one to my knowledge.... Politicians use their words to inspire people to go out and commit horrendous acts... Like I said, Powell's words inspired the NF, and all the violence that followed in its wake... As far as I'm concerned, Powell is every bit as responsible for what the NF did as the actual perpetrators of the crime, because NF leaders used Powell's words to justify their actions, just as all of Hitler's followers did....

 

 

The power of words should NEVER be underestimated.....

 

Where has the guy been racist ? what has anything he said got to do with the BNP who ARE racist and have a policy of repatriation for blacks and asians, how can you compare this guy to the BNP ? he is simply saying that Britain can't be a free for all and how is he wrong ? it is NOT racist to say that immigration controls be bought in it is practical economic common sense, I believe in a multi cultural society but there comes a point where a notice must come up saying "Britain is full - No more vacancies" and it is not racist to say that !

 

I believe that immigrants now should only be allowed in if they are qualified professionals - doctors, solicitors, dentists etc or if they have a minimum of £250,000 in assets and can pay their own way, similar to the system Australia have

 

This guy should be fukkin Tory leader not kicked out as a candidate

Yes, let him be Tory leader. They'd be unelectable for at least another decade.

 

Hastilow on the Scots - "The Scots exploit the English in much the same way that colonial powers in the 18th century used to exploit the native of South America. They take vast quantities of our money and spend it on themselves, making suree their lives are much cushier than ours". That'll soon get rid of the few Tory votes left in Scotland.

 

He said "we (i.e. Britain) roll out the red carpet for foreigners while leaving the locals to fend for themselves". OK, that's not directly racist but it's pretty clear where his sentiments lie.

Hastilow on the Scots - "The Scots exploit the English in much the same way that colonial powers in the 18th century used to exploit the native of South America. They take vast quantities of our money and spend it on themselves, making suree their lives are much cushier than ours". .

 

Yeah, convieniently ignoring the fact that his own party took vast quantities of our oil and spent it on tax breaks for rich Tory voters in the South East of England..... <_<

 

Fukkin' tw@t..... Unelectable buffoon......