Blogs Coffee House

My night with Godfrey Bloom

25 January 2014

8:57 AM

25 January 2014

8:57 AM

On Thursday night I spoke at the Oxford Union on the motion ‘This House believes post-war immigration into Britain has been too high.’

In many ways this is an easy debate to explain and win, notwithstanding the fact that Lord Singh, Nadhim Zahawi MP and Monica Ali were lined up in opposition. The Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has said immigration has been too high and that he wants to bring it down. The Labour Leader Ed Miliband has said the same. As have all major, mainstream British politicians.

And no wonder. A British Social Attitudes survey from last year showed 77 per cent of the British public want immigration to come down. Almost 60 per cent want it to come down by ‘a lot’. Even those Labour ministers who presided over what was undeniably the most appalling relaxing – or rather disintegrating – of our borders from 1997 onwards have admitted they got it wrong. ‘A spectacular mistake’ was how Jack Straw described it last year.

So, as I say, a fairly easy motion to win. With only two problems.

First of course is that there are still some people – including, it seems, many Oxford students – who hear ‘too much immigration’ and think ‘Eek, this is about my friend/ my great-great-grandmother etc. And then on Thursday there was also the fact that on my side, speaking before me, there was a student and Godfrey Bloom.

[Alt-Text]


I must say that I’ve never had any particular views on the expelled UKIP MEP. I think plain-speaking politicians are too few on the ground, and recognise that Mr Bloom has a constituency. I also know very well how the press can misrepresent someone by cherry-picking and then harping on about a few select remarks made over the course of a life (Prince Phillip being a case in point), thus making the person out to be more of a fool than they are. So I went in relatively open-minded about my own side, albeit aware of potential problems and wondering why the organisers hadn’t arranged their line-up rather better.

What Mr Bloom managed, however, was beyond my worst fears. Nevermind his referring to Monica Ali as ‘sweetheart’. Monica gave a very disappointingly and personally attacking speech herself (which was not just in favour of mass immigration but rather surprisingly glossed over all the considerable problems about it raised in, among other places, her own novel Brick Lane).

No, what was worst, and I gather has already created some media interest (which is why I set out the facts here), is Mr Bloom’s response to one floor-speech from a student.

The student in question was dressed in white tie and tails, had shoulder length black hair and a rather clear disability. I have no idea what it is. He appeared to be slightly lame in one leg. At any rate, he took himself to the box and gave a very impassioned speech against my side of the argument, ending in an unnecessary attack on Mr Bloom.

Mr Bloom’s response to which was to get up and demand of the student ‘Are you Richard III?’

Justly, the student responded by saying that when people go for physical attacks it’s generally because they’ve lost the argument.

But it was an awful moment. I thought the student’s speech misguided and wrong. But why anybody, let alone an elected politician, would taunt him for his disability is beyond me. It was a gruesome moment – ghastly, disgraceful and deeply telling of Mr Bloom. I was glad to have the opportunity to speak with the student afterwards.

Anyhow – despite my best efforts the side arguing that there has been too much immigration in Britain lost magnificently. And I cannot think it is because Oxford students are so completely out of touch with the opinions of the vast majority of the public and all major politicians. It is, I think, because serious, deep-rooted and sincere concerns end by getting treated with levity because they are believed to be concerns raised only by people like Mr Bloom.

I wish it weren’t the case. The problems this country is going to face if immigration does not come down are hard to overstate. But still you get people unwilling to explain why. For years it was because people feared being called ‘racist’. Now, thanks to people like Christopher Caldwell, Trevor Phillips and Paul Collier among other sober analysts, that problem has partly been diffused. But it isn’t then helped when even a portion of the argument is expounded by a character like Godfrey Bloom.

There is always room in our national comedy for ‘characters’. The problem is when they then use their status to wreck and otherwise make a laughing-stock of subjects which are far from comical. Especially when they turn out – as Mr Bloom did on Thursday – to be not just a bore, but a boor.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Arden Forester

    Godfrey Bloom has a fine mind but he has a terrible desire to shock without the awe. He needs to rid himself of his Mr Hyde side.

  • Charles_Dilkes

    I’m such a cynic that I can’t help thinking this is all very poor – here’s Bloom himself writing for Oxford University’s ‘Tab’ magazine:

    http://oxford.tab.co.uk/2014/01/27/godfrey-bloom-what-really-happened/

    I get the impression the media is indignant on this fellow’s behalf, seeking, as they usually do, one of ‘life’s victims’ – I don’t think this student felt like a victim – looks like they had a good booze up together, so why get so emotional of an admittedly gauche rubbing? It clearly wasn’t a vindictive comment.

  • Sean Raymond

    I am a fan of Douglas Murray but with this post he is clearly doing nothing more than some needless halo polishing. For this is a prime example of how the Nation has become just a bunch of cry babies eager to take offence on another’s behalf no matter how unwarranted.

    The fact is, it’s abundantly clear to anyone of a remotely fair mind that the Richard the 3rd quip refers to his very CLEAR resemblance to the royal. There is not even a whiff of humour being made at the expense of the man’s disability so it is truly baffling that anyone can make parallel’s between a lame leg & Richard the 3rd.

    Indeed, this leap of defence is actually offensive to the young man for, as someone with a disability, I assume he wishes to be treated like everyone else – so by extension this means to also put up with the same crap as everyone else. Thus, taking pity for the simple fact he is disabled is simply demeaning to him and insults the very idea of equal treatment.

  • Charles_Dilkes

    To be frank, this:

    “It is, I think, because serious, deep-rooted and sincere concerns end by getting treated with levity because they are believed to be concerns raised only by people like Mr Bloom.”

    Highlights how provincial these students / intellectuals are – it’s a sad indictment on their intellectual integrity when they’re incapable of rationalising the issues of mass immigration on its own merit. It shouldn’t require a prompting from anyone for them to investigate the issue (both subjectively – from personal testimony & objectively). They’re poor thinkers. Conversely, it’s an implicit rejection wholesale of sincere, and valid, concerns simply because they dismiss the interlocutor as some ingrate.

    Given the main remonstrance comes from the lower classes, that’s a pretty damning conclusion, isn’t it? The stupid proletariat clearly not worthy of the upper crust’s attention.

    And who assembled the panel of debaters? How can you have three individuals of immigrant stock arguing against the motion? Their stance is intrinsically subjective – it has to be: they have a personal stake in immigration as a principle. Likewise, the arguments for the motion seems conspicuously weak: a student & Bloom? Bloom is an eccentric – he’s a clever man but he’s intemperate – a recipe for disaster in and amongst the sensitive souls of a fusty debating chamber.

  • Never Again

    It was also worrying to hear a lot of students laughing along at the Richard III joke.

  • lojolondon

    I want to give credit to Mary Beard – she is so, so wrong on every important point (in my opinion) but she is welcome, indeed necessary for debate here.

  • Eddie

    More Mary Beard lies on Twitter (which I post word for word here for those who are no on Twitter – though her f word is censored by me – she wrote it in full though I can’t see anywhere in anyone’s post to her where it is said):

    ‘some reasoned debate, but far too much “twerp”, ‘”f—-ing professor” – ruins any case they are trying to make, sad in a way’ (Sic – punctuation left as bad as MB tweeted it).

    So here we have:
    1) a simple attempt to create ‘THE OTHER’ – a ‘they’ who can be contrasted with bien pensant ‘superiors’ as inferior and verminous. The Jews have often suffered such dehumanisation – so fitting really that the supporters of Palestinian Jihad should do the same.
    2) a typically aloof and sanctimonious ‘judgement’ on others by someone who sees herself superior to those who are not attention-seeking academics. The debate on the Speccie has been reasonable and many good points have been made refuting the drivel Beard has dribbled – and in an oh so patronising manner (she writes and speaks as if marking essays and assumes she has the right to judge – her sense of entitlement is way bigger than her massive house, I am sure).
    3) an attempt to portray all those who hold different views to the privileged and out of touch Beard as ‘sad’ (shorthand for mentally ill). Pure, unadulterated bullying.
    4) An attempt for Beard to portray herself as the victim, when she herself butted in here, attacking me for what I wrote about academics, giving her as a prime example of pomposity and sanctimony in that context.

    I stand by what I say – If more academics were sacked or otherwise disadvantaged by immigrations (lowered salaries, zero hours contracts for all academics) then maybe these leftwing hypocrites wouldn’t be such fans of mass immigration which is clearly hurting so many people (and that view is not a ‘right wing’ view either – many on the right want more immigration so they can pay employees less and make more profit! The left and right are in bed on this one. The people lose because of it).

    All in all, from what Beard is posting on Twitter, I would say she is a classic narcissist – fitting for a classicist maybe?

    • James Lovelace

      Of course, I’ll bet she didn’t say that the “fucking” was in response to her saying that with 9/11, America “had it coming”. I’ll bet she wants that shameful episode of hers buried.

      She’s totally unapologetic about that. She should be booed every time she appears on QT.

      • Eddie

        Indeed – she is a victimhood-craving attention seeker – like a postgraduate Jade Goody in a witchy wig. No better at all.
        Her deliberate attempt to portray herself as the victim – when she herself came on here uninvited attacking my views on the general uselessness and hypocrisy of spoilt academics – was not asked for or wanted.
        She then tries to portray all who are attacking her as ‘sad’ and the insinuation is too that anyone against her views of multiculturalism are awful racists.
        Well, it may come as news to Beard, but most people have the segregationist multiculturalism that has created such a mess in our country. Most people also think mass immigration has been a bad error and want it slashed now.
        Most importantly, Ms Beard sees her self as right (and righteous), as befits a true high priest of ‘political correctness’. She contrasts her supposedly superior and enlightened position with that of ‘sad’ people – who no doubt she would brand as ‘right wing’.
        Well, there are very many on the left and centre who disagree with Beard’s complacent and hypocritical views on mass immigration. Moreover, if one looks abroad, left wing groups are against the ideology of multiculturalism in countries like France – because they believe in defending Enlightenment values against the encroaching Islamo-fascism. I do not class myself as ‘right-wing’ – I defend the values of my country and culture. That is all.
        Sadly, those on the left in the UK continually support Muslims with vile and extreme views (British unis are hotbeds of Islamism and spawn terrorists by the hundred every year). – and they do so because Muslims mostly have dark skins and belong to a minority religion, If they were white men with the same views (minus the Allah bit), hypocrites like Beard would call them dinosaurs, bigots, racists etc.

    • James Lovelace

      “If more academics were sacked or otherwise disadvantaged by immigrations (lowered salaries, zero hours contracts for all academics) then maybe these leftwing hypocrites wouldn’t be such fans of mass immigration which is clearly hurting so many people”

      One thing you probably don’t realise, is that for all the hypocritical cant from universities about “diversity”, “equality”, etc. vast numbers of university teaching jobs are stitched-up before they are even advertised. The politically-correct academics then go through a charade, where they waste the time of 100s of people who apply for the jobs, and waste a day or more out of the life of the applicants who get to the interview stage. All the while, some candidate known to the department (often some student there or some part-time lecturer) has been ear-marked for the job.

      Nepotism, cronyism, Leftism.

  • James Allen

    Douglas – this is the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in regarding the EU. All of the 3 main parties support continued membership despite a majority (or sizeable minority) of the public favouring an exit. Thus we either allow ourselves to be under-represented, which is a frankly an abomination in a democracy, or we support the likes of UKIP and Godfrey Bloom (the latter no longer, thankfully). It’s a difficult balance; I’m still on the UKIP side for now, but there are limits!!

  • andy_gill

    It doesn’t surprise me that the Oxford Union voted in favour of continuing the present unsustainable levels of immigration. But it is a recipe for disaster, and Enoch Powell’s vision of the blood-stained Tiber could yet come to pass.

    Each shooting of children, each beheading, each bomb plot, each rape, each grooming gang and each act of vigilantism brings the day of reckoning slightly closer. The social pimple is full of pus, and must one day burst.

    • James Lovelace

      The same Oxford Union who invited Tommy Robinson to speak. And the fascist Left then used threats of violence and intimidation to scare them into not having him speak there.

      And Professor Mary Beard wonders where the threats of violence being used against one’s opponents in debate comes from.

  • Two Bob
    • global city

      The most disturbing aspect of the multifaceted assassination attempts the MSM try to commit on UKIP is the ones who try to psychoanalyse the reasons why, and then come up with all sorts of cod nonsense.

      The reasons why UKIP sustain their strength is because
      A. People believe in their core coupe of policies

      B. people can also smell an establishment stitching up or dirty tricks campaign from miles away.

      My advice for the MSM would be to leave UKIP alone, they are raising fantastically important issues…. and go after the Lib Dems instead. They have always been a party of really bad nuts as well as eccentrics.

  • Kevin T

    Don’t you think it’s time we as a country stopped trying to turn the taking of offence into our national pastime? It’s becoming pathetic. Somewhere like Australia, which has a much healthier attitude, that sort of debate would be considered banter and the student in question would have retorted in kind rather than played the victim. I don’t know when we started turning into auch a country of easily offended, politically correct cry-babies but we’re becoming the joke of the world.

    I suspect, quite seriously, it has a lot to do with dumbing down and a reduced ability to communicate. People get upset because they’re not mature enough to deal with something that offends them or witty enough to come up with an appropriate response when they’re insulted. Then you have political correctness, under which everyone is encouraged to put themselves in a box marked Victim and cry like an infant instead of standing up for themselves.

    • Colonel Mustard

      This is true. It does seem as though the hair trigger taking of offence is our new national industry. Maybe it is the hybrid of of our once innate politeness and Political Correctness?

    • Trofim

      From what I’ve read the Antipodes are just as PC-ridden as we are here.

    • Eddie

      Indeed. And all these people arrested and charged for saying rude words on Twitter, Facebook or in emails are all in the UK. Those doing the same in the USA (which guaranteed freedom of speech) usually do not get arrested; and in countries such as France, Spain and Italy, no-one gets arrested for such non-crimes.
      My theory is that Britain has never had fascism or communism, and has not been a totalitarian state for centuries. That means that we are sleep-walking into one, in the name of ‘equality’, diversity (though not of opinion!, ‘respect’, ‘anti-racism’ and feminism. Countries that have known fascism or communism recently are not.
      Just think of the many millions spent by the police – those new warriors of feminism and diversity – as they tootle around in their vans knocking on the doors of innocents in the middle of the night and taking away their computers for evidence. What a convenient way to boost arrest statistics too – much easier than going out and trying to catch muggers, thugs and thieves.

    • global city

      So, nothing to do with New Left philosophy using tactics of Cultural Marxism like political correctness and critical theory in order to demonise, shut down debate and usher in programmes to destroy our culture?

      Are we really just cry babies?

      • Kevin T

        It has everything to do with it but we’re cry babies for letting them.

        • global city

          but even just trying to defend your point or reject the claim is enough to see you demonised, denounced… and thanks to Tony Blair and Herperson, prosecuted for sedition.

  • Eddie

    I see Mary Beard has now, after she replied to my post here (repeated below) and had debates with posters here, is claiming yet again that she has been abused! I quote from her Twitter-whinge:

    “Crikey. Decided to respond on stuff below the line of Speccie comment piece. And look at the cr*p that came back.”

    NO, Ms Beard – I posted on the Speccie and YOU came back at me with your sanctimony and smugly irritating platitudes. You are doing what is known as fishing for abuse, provoking others into telling you how wrong you are. Hardly a victim then – more a perpetrator?
    HERE IS MY POST – the one which caused you to post abuse aimed at me.

    ‘The reason why so many patrician upper–middle class privileged wet Tories at Oxford are not against immigration is because it does not affect them or their families in a negative way. Au contraire, mummy’s house has tripled in value because of it, as have those investment flats bought by daddy; family firms make more profit from bringing workers’ wages down too; it’s easy to get cheap cleaners and au pairs and other servants; there are lots of new take-aways and ergo immigration is good for these selfish twerps.
    However, if only we could replace them in their jobs by immigrants who will work for half of what they get. Mary Beard could be first – I am sure many Polish former-teachers have a better knowledge of the dates of history than politically correct smug self-righteous ranters like her. Academics in general are a waste of space’

  • Q46

    Students know bubkiss… as our American cousins say… because they haven’t lived long enough, have no experienced outside the womb… it’s why they are at school, to be weaned, potty trained and to learn.

    Their best ‘uni’ education will be when they leave the crèche and have to go out into the big, wide, unfair, unequal World and compete for a living.

    There’s nothing like a good dose of reality to sharpen the senses.

    Of course some will learn nothing at all, and end up on the Front Benches in the Commons.

    • Trofim

      I went to university aged 29, after training for three careers. It was immediately obvious that university is completely wasted on most young people. I was regarded with some animosity for being interested in my subject. I thought it was going to be all late night discussions about existentialism etc., but in essence most of the students were going through a fun ritual to which they were entitled.

      • James Lovelace

        It’s a finishing school for the middle-class, under the guise of “education”. Of all the graduates I know, I’m the only one who reads books in the subject I studied 30 years ago. And I’m literally from the gutter – I had free school uniforms, free school meals because my family was so poor.

        The massive con that went on, was the elite didn’t want to admit that this finishing school was for grooming their brats, so they could take over running the country. That dishonesty has led to the massive expansion of universities. And 50% of graduates won’t get graduate jobs. And the vast majority of those 50% would be those whose family never went to uni 30 years ago.

        It’s a scam.

        • Eddie

          It’s a business! More students = more cash for universities from our taxes.
          That’s also why they let in foreign cash cow students whose English is pidgin at best, and who often academically are at a lower level than Brit students the same unis reject.
          What is also shocking is the decline of proper subjects – foreign languages and science (the departments of chemistry, physics, German and others have closed at our local uni here). These have been replaced by the dreaded media students, cultural studies, and various forms of waffling.
          I was recently appalled to learn that three quarters of those studying for an MSc in science (eg physics) at UK universities are non-British. The number of Brits studying these traditional (and hard) science subjects to high level is tiny.
          But never mind, we are churning out loads of graduates in history, creative writing, media studies etc. Hoorah!!!

          • James Lovelace

            “It’s a business! More students = more cash for universities from our taxes.”

            The Ponzi scheme is going to collapse. Fundamentally, schooling is about brainwashing kids, and acting like a day prison so the parents can work.

            Tertiary education is a scam. They wanted to extend the brainwashing (and pretend that the collapse of industry in Britain was not going to lead to massive unemployment). But the scale of the brainwashing needed to be so large, they needed to get students to pay for their own brainwashing.

            I knew I had to get out in the early 90s, when I failed a student who wrote a completely unintelligible essay, and as much as it was gibberish it was not even 50% of the word-length requirement. She appealed — and her page and half of gibberish was given a high 2:2.

      • global city

        That was my experience too. The main building where I had my urban studies also housed health professionals, or rather those training to be.. all prime candidates for that vocational obsession with their subject you’d expect. Not a jot of it. Last night’s telly was the main and constant subject in the common spaces!

    • Eddie

      Indeed, and at Oxbridge the academics are not only treated in a risibly respectful sycophantic fashion (out of fear) by undergraduates and others; they also get their rooms cleaned, their beds made, and their food cooked and served by the working classes. Like in a mental home then.

      • Fergus Pickering

        So did the students when I was there. And the job was very cushy indeed.

  • http://xstaedtler.wordpress.com/ Staedtler

    Immigration ought to be a fairly neutral term, it describes a simple fact of having been born in one country and now living in another, but now it’s been loaded up with all kinds of emotion and politics, especially moral disgrace, it’s near impossible to talk about.
    It must be said, politicians don’t help in this because they don’t even use the word in a reasonable way. They talk about controlling immigration, but they only ever mean from certain countries, as though only the kind of immigration you have the power to control, from outside Europe, is the only kind that should even count as immigration. But that is not what the word, just the word in itself, means. That’s a political rendition of language.
    This is why politics stinks. It so often ends up with people using the same words but with completely different meanings to one another, the everyday meaning and the separate bureaucratic meaning that makes discussion between the two impossible. It is too dysfunctional, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of frustration is to this failure to agree a common language.

  • Jane McQueen

    If a person can come from Romania or another Eastern European nation, and take your job and keep it doing it to the same standard as you were doing it. Then that says more about you as an individual than the immigrant.

    • Two Bob

      For a lower wage…..

    • Kevin T

      No, more often than not what it says is they’re prepared to put up with living in a small flat with a dozen other Romanians for a few years in return for low wages in UK pounds – wages that will crucially convert into good money in their own weak currency. That’s similar to what oil rig workers do. Unless you are suggesting the British working class forego having their own homes and raising famliies and accept living in shared flats also, UK workers can’t compete.

    • James Lovelace

      Entire businesses are being taken over by immigrants from other countries, and once they get enough influence, they ensure that no-one but their fellow country men get the jobs. The racism industry never apply the laws to those businesses. A few years ago, Pret a Manger (a massive chain of cafes) admitted as much. Nothing was done about it. Because the children of the chattering classes aren’t competing for those jobs.

    • scottrose

      Old goon, what compost dump did they dig you out of? That face would make a hedgehog vomit.

    • Carlos

      skank

    • Noel Weymouth

      Moooooooooo

    • Andrew

      That opinion smells like a dead fish.

  • sheenaghpugh

    “First of course is that there are still some people – including, it seems, many Oxford students – who hear ‘too much immigration’ and think ‘Eek, this is about my friend/ my great-great-grandmother etc”

    But is that an unreasonable thing to think? This debate is, after all, about real people.

    • Penny

      Yes, I understand your point, Sheenagh, but both immigrant and general population are people, and the latter’s concerns are – for the most part – genuine and, from a socio-economic perspective, valid.

      I can’t read Douglas Murray’s mind so can’t be sure what this particular comment was intended to mean but I read it as a) over-personalising an issue of some national importance and b) not terribly relevant to one’s friend or great-great-grandmother given that the concerns aren’t likely to apply to the former unless he or she is newly-arrived and unemployed, nor to the latter given that a great-great-grandmother is likely to be pretty well established in the UK.

      When a serious and/or popular argument is posed today there is, among some, a tendency to emote about it. To *feel* their way to an opinion rather than analyse the facts. That is not to say emotion has no place at all, but it’s pretty difficult to run anything much – be it a home business or a government – if our decision-making is based on how we feel.

      • global city

        do you mean like Ed Miliband does during PMQs, with his “johnny wrote to me. He lost his giro in the snow and the vile dole took more than half an hour to replace it. And you say that we’re all in it together?” like that?

  • roger

    The history of union votes show a trend towards perverse (wrong headed) results, it comes from the idea that you can twist logic linguistically.

  • Gnaeus-Julius Agricola

    As I plutocrat can I say that immigration is a jolly good thing. Those immigrants are hard workers, *not* like those lazy benefit-street brits, lettm rot!

    • James Lovelace

      You’re an ignoramus.

      75% of muslim women are unemplyed, 50% of muslim men. Clearly the native Brits are nothing like that, or the unemployment rate would be at 70% rather than 7%

  • ChrisTavareIsMyIdol

    So he verbally attacked Bloom, who replied in kind but only Bloom’s rather stupid remarks are recorded?

  • peterb

    I think young Mr Bloom was using Cockney Rhyming slang, referring to this student as a turd.

    So its okay for Bloom to be attacked and not fight back?

    Its time we stopped making victims out of everyone and stop taking offence on behalf of others, if this student was old enough to attack Bloom then it is right Bloom attacked back.

  • Richard Calhoun

    Its not an immigration problem, its a welfare & benefits problem !
    The main parties are starting to address this, which is welcome, but they need to move faster to rid us of nonsensical benefits to immigrants.
    So please stop going on about immigration, we have always had it and we have always needed them.
    Unless you wish the pensions of our children & grandchildren to be non existent deal with the benefits issue and immigration will take care of itself

    • Raw England

      What?

      Are you a foreigner or something? No, we have NOT always had immigration. We natives have been on these islands for thousands and thousands of years, right up until 1950, with NO IMMIGRATION.

      We never needed immigrants, and we certainly never wanted them.

      • Richard Calhoun

        You are factually incorrect, best you check before you comment?

        • Raw England

          I think you’ll find I’m not at all incorrect, Richard.

          • Richard Calhoun

            I can assure you that you are totally incorrect,

            • David Kay

              no shes right. Chesters very middle class, you havnt been affected by the perils of mass immigration yet. yet being the key word.

              • Richard Calhoun

                I did say I was born in Chester, spent from 18 to 30 living in the immigrant popular area of Ladbroke grove north kensington.
                So I have had much experience, for last 30+ years have lived near Slough / HighWycombe and during my working life employed many immigrants from the indian sub continent incl. Pakistan

                • Raw England

                  Ok. So, you’re a Capitalist who’s employed many foreign immigrants (this description includes all non-Whites in England) and presumably found them to be favourable compared to the (admittedly degraded, but said degradation due to effects of immigration/multiculturalism/Liberalism) native English population.

                  Sir, I put to you that your type are a part of the problem.

                  You have lost all trace of identity, pride, brotherhood, nationhood and will to survive as a race. You have lost all loyalty to your fellow English men and women.

                  But, you’ve made a lot of money, so who cares, eh, Richard.

                  Maybe you’ll care when hundreds and thousands of blacks, Muslims are burning our cities and banging down our doors.

                • James Lovelace

                  “degradation due to effects of immigration/ multiculturalism”

                  The degradation comes from the plans of the Left. When I was a student at a secondary modern school, and showed great promise, the Leftwing careers teacher laughed in my face when I said I wanted to become a lab technician. He told me to stop having grand ideas and get an apprenticeship in a factory.

                  By the time I was starting my 2nd degree, all the factories in that town had closed down.

                • Raw England

                  Yes. Sorry, James. You’re absolutely right: it is the replulsive Left who’s to blame more than any other. I’ve edited my comment.

                  I can just see the Leftist careers teacher now, with a patronising look of contempt on his face as he tells you to forget about your ambitions; ambitions which you would have undoubtedly achieved if we’d not allowed the Left to gain power.

                  As a White native, that Leftist wanted you to stay at the bottom.

                • James Lovelace

                  When I started at the school I was put in “the remedial class”, where those well-meaning teachers left the thick/deranged kids to just wreak havoc (the teachers used it as an opportunity to sleep, and only woke up when the kids got too loud).

                  After a year of that, when the exams came, I was in the top 20% of the school, despite missing an entire year.

                  The Left have destroyed Britain (and I include many Tories in that). Leftism will be wiped out in Europe, but that still will not stop the coming civil war.

                • Raw England

                  “The Left have destroyed Britain (and I include many Tories in that). Leftism will be wiped out in Europe, but that still will not stop the coming civil war”

                  Exactly. All the top three parties are Leftist and multicultural. And you’re right that the coming war is inevitable; it is coming. And it will be savage.

                  My only qualm with your comment is that it’s overwhelmingly England that’s suffering all this, not Britain as an whole.

                  We need to forcibly assert our English blood and identity.

                • James Lovelace

                  You’re right it is England that will be the crucible. Those white supremacists (like the guy from Ukraine who murdered that muslim man in the Midlands) know that — the Ukrainian very deviously chose places like Tipton and Walsall for his bombs.

                  However, my partner is asian, my brothers are married to black women, my parents are immigrants. Genetically, I’m not English or even British. But mentally, I am English. And when the EDL was created, I was delighted to see that they saw Englishness as a state of mind, nothing to do with biology. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8303786.stm

                  But that progressive view by the EDL was destroyed by the same media who promote the traitors who get rolled out on Question Time week after week.

                  The EDL is probably finished. And I think it will be the ethnonationalists who end up fighting against muslims in the civil war. And I think people like me and my partner will be collateral damage.

                • Raw England

                  James – I’m probably what you’d call an ethno-nationalist. But this stance, given our dire, deadly situation, is absolutely essential.

                  But I feel no anger or hate at all towards you for having a non-White wife etc. I understand your position.

                  Yes, the EDL did have a progressive view of Englishness. They didn’t care about race. But as you can see, they’ve been destroyed by the immigrants who now hold huge power in government, police and elsewhere. And by the hard left, who are essentially in totalitarian power.

                • James Lovelace

                  EDL has been destroyed by a) a patrician elite, b) the Left, c) muslims, d) a complicit media.

                  What comes after the EDL will not be an organisation that welcomes gays, jews, sikhs, blacks, etc. as EDL did.

                  IMO the next wave of resistance will have learned from the concerted attack on EDL. And they will learn from muslims. The next wave of resistance will be violence. The elite and the media have shown they care nothing for the lie that in Britain all you have to do is make legal protest and you will be listened to.

                • Richard Calhoun

                  Well, you have got the wrong end of the stick!!
                  I have not made a ‘lot’ of money and I am passionate about my country.

                  I have every confidence we will emerge from this dark period of socialism into the uplands of the free market and see our great country prosper once again.

                  You my friend confuse patriotism and race, any person born in England is English, despite his colour, we are a unique nation and English, Scots, Welsh and British are defined by our ever evolving culture.

                  It is not defined by Little Englander xenophobes living in the past, dreaming of an England of the 1930’s, wishing for it to be set in aspic.

                  Lift your sights, elevate your horizons, there is an exciting World out there made up of many different peoples, we can and will make our country great again

                • Raw England

                  No, sir. Being born in England does NOT make them English. The 6/7 million Muslims in England are anything BUT English.

                  English IS an ethnicity; a WHITE ethnicity. Even Wiki will tell you that…

                  Little Englander? Quite the opposite. I want to radically reclaim England for English people so that we have the unity, power, wealth and confidence to SOAR.

                  As it stands, with filthy immigration and multiculturalism, we’ve been aggressively forced to receed, shrivel and rot. Because our foundations are being eaten by immigrants (both born here and recent arrivals), we’ve been crippled; rendered a weak, pathetic shadow of what we WOULD HAVE BEEN…

                • Richard Calhoun

                  How disappointing, I thought you were a reasonable rational person to begin with, but it is now very evident you are not.

                  Unsure where your views emanate from?

                  It is very sad, because what you don’t seem to realise/ understand is that the mix of the people in the UK is not going to change back to what it was.

                  We are where we are, we can and will prosper as a nation and being a tolerant country the views such as yours are very much a minority.

                  Incidentally a lot of your statistics and facts are wrong, there are only 2.7 m muslims in the UK.

                  The wikipedia article you referred to previously is worth reading in full, don’t forget everything evolves, and that includes descriptions of nationality.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_immigration_to_Great_Britain

                • James Lovelace

                  “Incidentally a lot of your statistics and facts are wrong, there are only 2.7 m muslims in the UK.”

                  Even muslim academics are telling us that the government has connived to manipulate the Census. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-leon-moosavi/why-has-the-number-of-mus_b_2279610.html

                  A meat industry report from 2006 said that 11% of the meat in the UK is halal. I trust the meat industry more than our lying politicians. That would make the muslim population closer to 10%.

                • Richard Calhoun

                  Agree with you that politicians of all persuasions manipulate statistics but I believe our population statistics are about as correct as you can get

                  http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/browse-by-theme/taxonomy/index.html?tons=People,+Population+and+Community

                • James Lovelace

                  “I believe our population statistics are about as correct as you can get”

                  Then why are successive governments saying they are abolishing the Census because the figures are so unreliable? They say that the food industry has more accurate statistics.

                  IMO the only thing that makes sense of muslims being 13% of the prison population is that the muslim population is so much larger than the official stats claim.

                • Raw England

                  (a) they always release figures for the UK as an whole, which is very, very misleading as only England has borne the huge brunt of immigration etc, and (b) the Left wing/immigrant politicians, think tanks etc do ANYTHING to understate these types of statistics because they don’t want people to know just how bad things are, and where the demographic trajectory is heading.

                • James Lovelace

                  If Scotland gets independence, then the crisis in England will come much quicker. Going off official stats, If muslims are 5% of the UK (as the halal meat stats show), then they are more like 15% of the population of England.

                  In certain geographies, when muslims reach just 35% of the population, they can take political control (as the 35% muslims in Tower Hamlets have done).

                • Raw England

                  Exactly, James.

                • Raw England

                  Precisely.

                  When we look at the statistics for England alone, the Muslim population now numbers at least 6 million – and growing very fast. Also growing increasing rapidly, and hugely disproportionately, in real political power and influence.

                • ButcombeMan

                  Just an observation. The meat industry especially at the lower end is and has long been one of the most corrupt in Britain

                • James Lovelace

                  I’m not sure how that would affect these statistics. I can’t see any reason for them a meat industry body to lie about the % of meat that is halal.

                  Any ideas how such corruption might affect it?

                • Raw England

                  I understand that its probably now too late. But I promise you: there will be no multicultural utopia. The collapse has already begun, and its going to get much, much worse, unfortunately.

                  My view within working class England is not at all a minority one.

                  In England, not the UK, just England, there are approximately 6 million Muslims.

                • Richard Calhoun

                  Here are the official population statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_England

                  We can all work towards building a harmonious country, as 2nd generation come through, inter marry etc, the task of integrating becomes easier.

                  Also please remember we white english were once all church goers, but now very few bother, it will be the same in the muslim asian communities with the 2nd & 3rd generations

                • James Lovelace

                  ” it will be the same in the muslim asian communities with the 2nd & 3rd generations”

                  You must love lying to yourself.

                  If having all the terrorists in Britain in the last 13 years coming from that 5% of the population who are muslims doesn’t convince you, perhaps the surveys which show that young muslims in Britain are 3x more fascistic/religious than their parents will help show you the truth.

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6309983.stm

                  Young, “integrated”, westernised, muslims are blowing themselves and Tube passengers up, but in the land of Pangloss, everything is just super-duper.

                • Raw England

                  Precisely.

                • Raw England

                  Christianity is all but dead, here, now. Islam is set to be the dominant majority, very soon.

                  Richard, your hopes will not materialise. The young Muslim generation here are already far more politicised and religious than their parents. They’re embracing the global ummah stance. I assure you, they feel absolutely no loyalty to our country.

                • Richard Calhoun

                  By the way are you on twitter??

                • Raw England

                  Nope.

                • Richard Calhoun

                  You would enjoy it

      • Richard Calhoun

        And No, I would not be classified as a foreigner, born in Chester of English /Welsh parents

        • Raw England

          A Middle Class, left-wing student, I presume?

          If so, I request you educate yourself, and see exactly what’s going to happen to us all if immigration continues, and if multiculturalism continues.

          Cheers.

          • Richard Calhoun

            No, a retired guy who believes in free markets and capitalism

            • Raw England

              Ok. Then I respect you as an elder. But I assure you that Britain became the greatest nation in the world, and built much of modern civilisation, without a single immigrant.

              We also had those things called jobs, houses, security, identity and that thing called freedom of speech (now completely dead). These things were our assured bar.

              Immigration destroyed all that.

              I’m surprised that, particularly with you being an older gentleman, that you have the views you do.

              • Richard Calhoun

                Not looking for any favoured status due to my age!! Only 72!

                But you are right people of my generation find it hard to accept immigrants, they only see the down side, but they are so wrong.

                But seriously you will find Britain has always welcomed immigrants over the centuries, in fact the majority of us are immigrants!

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_immigration_to_Great_Britain

                • Trofim

                  But Mr Calhoun, England is never the same place. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, In 2008, for the first time ever, England overtook the Netherlands in becoming the most densely populated country in Europe, the planet’s most densely populated continent. 400+ per square km, and that was 5 years ago. We are going to be ever more dependent on others for our food and raw materials, hostages to fortune, and just to import what we need, let alone what we want, means we are going to work like billyo. Besides, space is part of the good life. I’ll repeat again that Scandinavians mostly have second homes bigger than our houses. Singaporeans, Bangladeshis don’t – quite the contrary. If you’re happy to be live without ever seeing a horizon, I guess you can be quite happy in Singapore or Hong Kong. Not me.

                • Richard Calhoun

                  You are so right, Britain constantly evolves, we always have done and I have no doubt will continue to do so.
                  It is a fact that people prefer to live in an urban environment, there has been an inexorable shift to city living and the future is likely to be made up of City States.
                  We are going to have to be resourceful as never before and I am sure we are up to it.
                  Rid us of the shackles of socialism that the last govt and this govt impose on us and you will be amazed at what people can achieve with the govt off their backs

                • Trofim

                  “there has been an inexorable shift to city living”

                  So that’s why there’s a property programme called “Start a New Life in the Country” and not one called “Start a New Life in the Middle of Manchester”, and why a million or more people have left London in the past twenty years or so to live elsewhere in Britain. And that’s why you can’t walk down a road in Worcestershire, Norfolk, north Lincs or any other rural county without bumping into an ex-Londoner, and why we’ve built a special suburb in Worcester called St Peter’s where, if you ask the way, you’re answered by an estuary accent. It’s all clear now.

                • Richard Calhoun

                  I am sure you feel that in Worcester but the facts are different, it is a world wide phenomena

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization

                • Trofim

                  We’re past that period in Britain. People see the good life in the country. I live in Birmingham. My home village is full of incomers getting out of cities, primarily Londoners and Brummies. Whenever I tell Brummies I’m from Worcestershire, they are so envious. A mere 4 miles away from me is Sparkhill, essentially the Swat valley with British buildings. You brush against jihadis aplenty there, on their way to Syria. The lingua francas are Urdu and Pashto. Why do think Muslims who marry non-Muslims are ostracised and disowned by their families? Ask Safraz Manzoor. Whenevre possible Muslim men get their wives from Pakistan or Bangladesh to make sure they are untainted by the west. Integration is something Muslims resist to the last. Come to Brum B11 or B10 and have a look. You need to put your rose-tinted glasses away. I worked as a psychiatric nurse, and well remember a case when we had to admit a young woman, pretending she was mad, because she had been seeing a non-Muslim, just to avoid her being murdered by her family. She had to be smuggled out to a taxi under a sheet and deposited in a safe house. She refused to go in a taxi driven by a Muslim driver, because it would compromise her safety.

                • James Lovelace

                  It’s well-known that the network of muslim taxi drivers work as bounty-hunters. And they are heavily involved with the grooming-gangs.

                • ButcombeMan

                  Where is La Beard when she should be listening?

                • Richard Calhoun

                  As to your question what do ‘they’ need to achieve?

                  I would say we are looking to prosper economically to provide our children and grandchildren with a quality of life that will be an improvement on our own.

                  Isn’t that everyone’s ambition?

                • Trofim

                  There’s much more to life than prospering economically. How much prosperity do you need? We were prosperous in 1957. I remember Mac telling us we’d never had it so good. We’re hyper-prosperous, staggeringly prosperous in comparison now, so logically, people must be orgasmically, blissfully happy. Are they?
                  Prosperity is like heroin. There is a phenomenon known as habituation. An addict needs an increased dose to obtain the same level of satisfaction. The increased dose briefly gives a brief buzz, then becomes the norm, and the addict needs another increased dose. It’s the same with prosperity.
                  People aren’t any happier than they were in 1957. In 50 years time they’ll be as happy as they are now, no more.
                  Happiness depending on prosperity is an illusion. I lived in the USSR for a year in the 1970’s. It was materially the poorest year of my life, and logically it should have been the unhappiest, but it certainly wasn’t.

                • Richard Calhoun

                  Not sure what you are trying to prove, but can only say without progress the only way is backwards.

                  I am sure you enjoy your view, but the indisputable fact is people are choosing the urban life to the rural.

                  However there are still many people who are poor in our society,many badly let down by a broken education system,

                  This is why as a nation we must increase our prosperity, so that a greater majority of people are in a position to achieve it as well.

                  As for MacMillan, he was the beginning of our decline, with his One Nation toryism, a euphimism for socialism

                • James Lovelace

                  “We were prosperous in 1957. I remember Mac telling us we’d never had it so good. We’re hyper-prosperous, staggeringly prosperous in comparison now, so logically, people must be orgasmically, blissfully happy.”

                  Much of our “prosperity” is an illusion, built on borrowed money. I remember the 1970s, when many people in the north-west of England did not have bathrooms or even internal toilets.

                  The day of reckoning will come. Eventually the demos will realise their votes were bought by saddling their children with debt and a world of violence.

                • Raw England

                  Richard. Now you’re spouting standard Leftist delusions.

                  I’ve just seen your other comment, though, and it finally reveals why you like immigration so much. I shall reply under said comment.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Scroll down to the DNA bit!

                  “This indicates that a majority of maternal lines in the population go back to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods.”

                • Richard Calhoun

                  Thanks for the contribution !!

      • The Red Bladder

        Is that really right, no immigration for thousands of years? You amaze me.

        • gerontius

          Some immigration, but not much.
          The truth, Slackbladder, is often “amazing”

      • serialluncher

        The Vikings, Normans, the Romans, Huguenots etc don’t count obviously.

        • Raw England

          Different matter, SerialLuncher. For obvious reasons…..

        • johnslattery

          The Vikings were more or less same Germanic stock, and are part of the core population. The Normans numbered around 25,000, the size of a Leicester suburb. The Romans and Huguenots were a negligible number. Immigration was a drop in the bucket until the 1950s.

          • sheenaghpugh

            Since when was the “core population” Germanic? I think you’ll find it was originally Celtic, before it was adulterated with Romans and then Saxons, Vikings and Normans! Your ancestors were immigrants too, pal, and in all probability so are my own Celtic ancestors. So what?

            • Colonel Mustard

              “Historically, British people were thought to be descended from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century; the pre-Celts, Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse and the Normans. Recent analysis indicates that the majority of the traceable ancestors of the modern British population arrived between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago and that the British broadly share a common ancestry with the Basque people, although there is no consensus amongst geneticists.”

        • Colonel Mustard

          My family surname is Norman in origin and I can trace my family to the 13th Century but I still consider myself to be English, ethnically, culturally, linguistically, historically and every other ally you might choose.

          There is no comparison to what happened in the past and the recent waves of immigration here. It is a red herring.

          • Raw England

            They need to get it into their addled minds: Englishness is an ethnicity; a White ethnicity. And that is how we prospered for thousands and thousands of years.

            The English people are thus: White, with family-lines/ancestors in England. Its as simple as that.

          • oddball1776

            Norman descendent!!
            Harumph.
            Downvote for you Colonel.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Yes, I’ve read Ivanhoe too . . .

              • oddball1776

                For shame!!!

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Of course. “Gare le corbeau!” “Cave, Adsum!”, etc.

                • oddball1776

                  “Beware the Raven, I am here”.

                  New ‘thing’ learned from the Colonel no.3258.

                  Without wishing to descend into sycophancy CM, for an underclass Scumbagicus Plebicus such as I, to be able to follow those such as yourself, and delve directly into your knowledge, thoughts and ideas.

                  Is akin to gaining access to some kind of magical, almost mystical wonderland. I exaggerate not.

                  Thank you. Over and out.

    • Raw England

      You’re missing a BIG aspect to all this, Richard: The huge welfare bill and immigration are INTRINSICALLY connected to each other.

      Muslim men claim a huge amount in benefits, and Muslim women claim a colossal amount: 75% of them don’t work AND they claim benefits for many multiple children….

      Blacks also claim a huge amount in benefits.

      And this is just the ‘legal’ immigrant population…

      If immigration had been destroyed before it began in 1950, our welfare system would be beautifully balanced.

      • Richard Calhoun

        Wow!! You really do have a problem with people of a different colour to us.
        But alas your facts are wrong, we could go on forever, but if you google the information you will discover the real truth.
        Yes, we have a huge problem with welfare and benefits in this country, the system is completely broken.
        We should have a small state low tax economy, not one where 60% of car fuel is tax, where VAT is 20%, its robbery, let people keep their money and allow them be accountable

        • Raw England

          That massive VAT and tax you pay – do you want to know WHY its so high, and where the money is going?

          Its all used to build schools, houses, streets etc etc. Oh but WAIT: these things are not for the native population, they’re for the rapidly increasing/breeding IMMIGRANT population.

          One example: 90% of the housing demand is due to IMMIGRANT growth…

        • global city

          I think it is you who has the problem with skin colour… you infantalise them and fetishise them all in one go.

          MASS immigration IS a problem and is unprecedented.

          As you say, we have always had migration. You should support sustaining this at the levels you celebrate as previously being adequate and stop with crap about financing pensions (immigrants get old too, so the pyramid has to eternally grow) and insulting those who disagree with your all too self conscious righteousness.

          You have just tried to parade your PC credentials in order to shut down the debate. You failed on both counts.

          • Richard Calhoun

            Strong stuff global city, but the rant is not necessary.

            The problem is not immigration, the problem is the welfare and benefits system, which is why suddenly both major parties are scrambling to be the first to put it right

            As for pensions, well new immigrants will have children which will go towards pensions of our children and grow our economy.

            The demographics in Germany.Italy & Japan are horrific, we in the UK are going in the right direction

            So its not about PC credentials its about the facts, forget all the political claptrap and just check the facts my friend!!

            • Eddie

              ‘As for pensions, well new immigrants will have children which will go towards pensions of our children and grow our economy.’
              Yes, but all those immigrants will not ONLY pay into the system but take from it – they will have pensions, healthcare, benefits costs, education costs. Funny how the pro-immigration lobby leave all those costs out!
              There is NO net benefit from immigration – and if you add into the maths the cost of social breakdown, there is a net loss. And that is just talking numbers, not the loss of a people’s land and culture to invaders.

              • Richard Calhoun

                Your claims are incorrect, immigrants are enabling us to grow our economy, their pension contributions are supported byr the increase in population, ie their children.
                Your comments with regard to loss of land & culture are nonsense, we have land available for all and our culture evolves continually.
                England’s future is not to be set in aspic, but to look forward and grow our economy

  • Raw England

    Even by taking part in this ‘debate’, you gave it credence.

    THERE IS NO DEBATE. The overwhelming majority of natives hate what decades of black, Pakistani immigration has done to us.

    The debate has already been had by the people. We now must move into the next narrative, which is stopping ALL immigration; and then the vital (if we want to avoid being terrifyingly dominated by foriegners in our country) question: ‘How do we vastly reduce the huge post-war immigrant population in our country?’.

    That’s where we must push the narrative. The hard left/immigrant Oxford Union has no say in what the people want.

  • outraged

    Oxford relies heavily on the fees from the international students, is that not enough to determine the outcome?

  • Freddie Moneyy

    David Browne began his speech rebuking Bloom – perhaps unnecessarily, though not without reason on his part – instead of ending it with words to him. It was the previous speaker for the opposition who ended his speech by asking Bloom ‘If he was serious’ in what he said, without explaining quite what he was referring to and generally being pretty useless in so doing. Perhaps Bloom would been better in asking said previous opposition speaker if he was Charles I, in keeping with his ridiculous hairstyle and ability to alienate much of the room by a stupid comment.

  • saffrin

    Even the Oxford Union debating chamber is full of “students”. Being students, they spent the first thirteen years being indoctrinated by Labour/EU thinking during their dumbed down education.
    Fortunately, they are a minority in this country. Nothing to worry about, their small minded, limited experiences will grow with time.
    Who knows, once they find a real job, they too can compete in the real World with the rest of them, including those immigrants they are yet to learn there are too many of.

    • global city

      but the problem for the country is that for far too many of them their next step in life is into politics, then directly on to parliament

    • Raw England

      They’re a mixture of vile hard left students (native), and immigrant students. And their view is most certainly the minority one. But these wretches are the ones entering power. Most would argue they already are in power to a big extent.

      So its something to worry about. But instead of ‘worrying’, I recommend turning it into rage instead.

  • Roy Allen

    Perhaps the reason the Oxford students rejected your case was because they’re better informed about the realities of immigration than the population at large who rely all too readily for information on the lies of the Daily Mail.
    European immigrants since 2000 have made a positive contribution to the government’s finances.

    • saffrin

      The car factory where I live has 40% immigrant workforce as does the NHS.
      It isn’t the Daily Mail that is confused, it is you.

      • outraged

        NHS is bringing doctors from outside of the European Union, mostly from India and Pakistan, but also from Jordan, Middle East and so on. Roy was referring to European immigrants.

        Which car factory are you referring to, is it Jaguar taken over by Ratan Tata?

        • saffrin

          BMW

    • First L

      It’s been shown that the figures saying that european migrants have a net economic benefit to the UK are simply made up – relying on massive assumptions about length of time in work, length of time in the country, wages, benefits taken etc.

      The fact is, you cannot say a damn thing about whether immigrants have made an overall positive or negative impact on the country for the very simple reason that no one in the country knows how many are here, how many of them are employed, how many of them are on benefits, how many of them have criminal records, how many of them are sending their pay home – thus taking money out of the country, how many of them have integrated, how many of them are here illegally, how many of them speak English, how many of them have used the NHS on a one time or regular basis, how many of them have committed crimes.

      NuLabour saw absolutely no reason to record any one of the above statistics. We don’t have a clue how many people came into this country between 1997 and 2010. We can only make a guess. No one – let alone the European Commissioner who invented the statistics you are using, can tell us anything about immigration in this country. You can only say what your own personal experience of it is. Many people see their areas becoming ghettoised, benefit tourism, wages being depressed, aggressive gypsy beggars and travellers and other foreigners, taking over towns and public spaces, so called ‘Muslim patrols’, thousands of people unable to speak English and an increase in crime. That’s what mass immigration has done for us.

      • Donafugata

        And even those here legally and in unskilled jobs will be receiving top ups to their minimum wages along with the cornucopia of HB, child benefit etc. while getting free health and education.

        They would have to earn £45,000 to be making any positive contribution.

    • FrenchNewsonlin

      Its not European immigrants that are the issue!

    • Daniel Maris

      Evidence please… ?

      • David Kay

        take the 2 down votes as proof that there is no evidence.

    • global city

      MASS immigration, year on year, with no end in sight… and that ‘research’ was bogus, which does rather expose the dogmatic nature of those who would have a never ending flow of MASS migration.

      But, those who peddle the demand for continual, never ending MASS migration are also usually those with a mad attachment to the evil dogma of multiculturalism. They also usually tend to flap around glibly gormless ideals of ‘a world without borders’ and ‘it’s payback for empire’…and other hate thoughts.

    • gerontius

      “Perhaps the reason the Oxford students rejected your case was because
      they’re better informed about the realities of immigration than the
      population”

      Surely the truth is the exact opposite. Common people know all about immigration because they, unlike pampered Oxford students, are the ones that have to live with the consequences.

  • Daniel Maris

    The next general election is probably the last chance to avoid serious social breakdown in this country – unfortunately the country’s fate appears to be in the hands of a party that has harboured numerous buffoons like Bloom. Farage really needs to assemble a small credible team to be the public face of UKIP.

    • saffrin

      As the article says, the media cherry picks, including this very article.

      Last week it published information informing the public, regardless of the uproar over the MP’s expenses scandal, MP’s still waste tax payer’s money buying portraits of each other.
      The reality is this is more proof of the contempt and indifference The Houses of Parliament have for the electorate, yet the media, although reporting it, didn’t “harp on about it” the way they did when Geoffrey Bloom made his
      Bonga Bonga Land remark.

      • Donafugata

        Bloom doesn’t seem to be too bright an individual.
        He probably had fun causing outraged reaction with the
        Bongo-bongo land remark but this drew attention away from his main point about the vast sums given in overseas aid.

        He should have anticipated that a subject which desperately needs intelligent debate would be hijacked by the apoplectic pc crowd.

        The man’s a liability to UKIP.

        • Wessex Man

          He’s not bright and he now has his own party or so he says!

  • Daniel Maris

    Bloom would be a liability for any cause, including being kind to animals and old ladies.

  • asalord

    England will still vote for ukip in the EU elections – thankfully.

    • David Kay

      and sadly Scotland will still vote to stay in the UK – unfortunately.

      • gerontius

        As an Englishman, I agree with your sentiment.

  • Druth

    Another snidey ad homimen attack on UKIP.

    • Wessex Man

      Godfrey Bloom is not in any way mainstream UKip, in fact he’s not UKip anymore and the last I heard of him he was setting up his own political party, called I think, Me and my shadow!

  • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

    I’m very disappointed to see Trevor Phillips mentioned in a positive light.

    Like many ‘race relations’ experts he is totally without principle.
    For many years he held that multi culturalism was a good thing and would prove beneficial to the UK.

    When it became apparent that such was not the case and after spending a few years denying the undeniable he suddenly produced a speech saying we were sleep walking to a ghettoised society not realising that this was implied by and became a direct consequence of his earlier views.

    How Oxbridge types can still conclude that mass immigration occurring over short time scales and including divisive religious/racial aspects is a good thing really shows how stupid many academically able people can be.
    Do they learn (Should I say read.? They know everything already) history at Oxbridge hehehehehe ?

    Events have been set in motion that have threatened/damaged the cultural/racial identity of the nation and nothing can be done about it !!

    60 years of weak kneed indecisive dewy eyed liberalism. by the political policy makers.

    • artemis in france

      Trevor Phillips merely did what any rational person would do when hé realises hé has made an error of judgement in the past. He admitted it and changed his mind. He has continued to argue against mass immigration ever since. You cannot condemn him now because you agree with his argument. He was courageous.

      • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

        His argument ?
        He advocated a policy that has led to disastrous consequences.
        He then , with long delay and great reluctance, at 100 k plus per year, pointed out the negative nature of those consequences.

        To the best of my knowledge he never associated the consequences with his EARLIER ideas…and you call that courage ?

        He is an opportunist of the worst kind…not quite as bad as Alibhai-Brown

        I actually believe that on the QT Phillips got the boot from the Commission for Racial equality.

      • Tom M

        This sounds lke “lessons must be learned” in action doesn’t it? The problem I have with people like Trevor Philips and politicians who come across with this sort of excuse is that you can excuse an amateur with little knowledge of a subject for being unaware and having to “learn lessons” but when some one is appointed to a senior political or public position I expect them to be knowledgeable about their brief. Why else would you choose them?

        • David Kay

          the colour of their skin?

    • kingzog1

      Oxbridge types support unlimited unskilled immigration for two reasons

      One is self interest. Letting in lots of unskilled immigrants forces down wages for cleaners, builders etc. The sort of wages they pay. On the other hand their employers are unlikely to hire anyone who didn’t go to Oxbridge. So it has no effect on the wages people pay them.

      The second is more subtle. At an elite university there will be a few foreigners, but those foreigners will tend to share the same elite values – including the belief that multiculturalism is good. In fact they are more likely to share them than non elite natives.

      Non elite natives are typically despised for voting against their interests when they vote for conservative parties, but that’s actually rather patronising. Certainly its hard to see how mass immigration is in their interests economically. Also culturally it is harder for them to accept. A working class person from Birmingham is likely to disagree about culture more with an immigrant from Pakistan more than an English person at Oxbridge is with a classmate from Pakistan.

      • James Lovelace

        Going back as far as John Stuart Mill, British “liberals” have always believed that they should rule as an oligarchy. Mill wanted those with degrees to have more votes than the ordinary person.

        Orwell came to realise that the British Left had no problem with oligarchy, provided that they were the oligarchs.

        The Leftist agenda has taken over most western societies. The vast majority can’t even perceive — even the Tories don’t perceive it. In 1960 Hayek wrote an essay called “Why I am not a Conservative”, in which he castigated the British Tories for being socialists. Take Thatcher out of the last 60 years of British politics, and one sees that Cameron is like Heath — another Leftist. Never mind that Cameron etc. went to Eton – provided mouthing (and to some essential degree, implementing) Leftist policies make the tiny elite even more fabulously wealthy, they will do it.

      • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

        King Zog I certainly agree with inter racial cultural identification across the class divide aspect (wow) of your post.
        I’m not so sure about the economic side.

        That POV does exist but not so much from Oxbridge types who tend to be patrician and probably naively idealistic..

        Since I think few people could deny that the nation is in a mess and it seems much policy thinking over the last 50 years has emanated from Oxbridge and public school types in general

        it has long puzzled me why as a GROUP they are held in such esteem

        If you want to see apoplexy raised to the power of a googleplex lets start a party dedicated to withdrawing subsidies from public schools and instituting a properly run educationally rigorous comprehensive system.

        All would have guaranteed entrance.
        The brightest in all spheres would be encouraged by streaming depending on the results.of exams.the content of which would vary from simple to difficult questions

        • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

          I said ; (…edit…) Oxbridge types who tend to be patrician and probably naively idealistic..

          Changing the vid to show the student speaking actually confirms what I have quoted.
          He parrots the untruth that immigration has increased the nation’s wealth but what’s even worse he calims that immigrants share our values.
          This is completely untrue of Islam.

          Then the exagerrated ‘I welcome them’ with emphasis on the ‘I’ reveals the patrician attitude of a young still wet behind the ears student refusing top see the world as it really is !.

  • Chris Hobson

    I would not listen the opinions of the oxbridge crowd they wanted AV and it was roundly defeated plus they have given us many of the incompetent political class. They are just not affected by immigration with daddys credit card and the family home in the sticks.

    • roystonvasey

      AV would just increase the number of Lib-Dems ,or whoever is seen as the most middle of the road,being elected.Labour and Tories were mostly against it I think.

      I do support genuine Proportional Representation,so I voted against AV.

      • James Lovelace

        The LibDems showed that they had no interest in PR. They could have made it the sine qua non of entering a coalition. That they didn’t proved that LibLabCon is one party with 3 hats.

  • radsatser

    Might we be informed of the nature of the comments of the student. You seem to have found the space to comment on the fact he was dressed smartly, but failed to mention the nature of his comments to Godfrey Bloom, and whether or not it is was an ad hominem attack itself. Please inform us.

    As others have said it is a dirty world politics, and if you can’t stand the heat etc etc..

  • David Kay

    if the student launched an unnecessary attack on Mr Bloom, the said student should have expected a response in kind. The moral of the story, dont give it if you cant take it

    • Wessex Man

      Rubbish, Godfrey Bloom’s only interest is Godfrey Bloom, always has been always will be. He will use any means he can to promote himself and his weird views.

      I say that as a long standing member of UKip, who is really relieved to see him nearly gone. I wonder how his new political party is doing? probably nothing without the support of others!

      • David Kay

        it just seems to me that its typical of the left to be abusive, yet when people respond in kind, they complain. They’re good at giving it, not at taking it

        • Wessex Man

          Given that I’m not left wing your accusation means nothing.

          • David Kay

            i wasnt making any accusations about you, i was just making a general point about leftists dishing it out and not being able to take it, Ed Balls being a prime example

            But your telling me, if someone launches an unnecessary attack on you, youre not going to respond in kind?

            • Eddie

              Yes, I agree – and we also see gender and racial politics here. It is just diddly for a feminist or a black loudmouth to fling abuse at those they don’t like – but if it’s done the other way round, esp if white men respond, then they claim harassment and trolling, and call the plods who just love wasting yet more public money boosting their arrest stats. Almost always arrest white men for that though eh?

              • FrenchNewsonlin

                Want to see a record of that abuse against whites you mention? Try here, from about 3 mins in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz73Is8kHVQ

                • Donafugata

                  Thanks for the link.

                  I lived in Paris for several years but saw nothing like the unprovoked attack on that poor woman on the metro, or was it the RER? There is also a breathtaking lack of gallantry from other passengers.

                  I used to hate going to the airport because the RER also goes to the banlieus, a very nerve-wracking journey.

                  I think we can expect similar incidents in the UK in the not too distant future.

      • The Red Bladder

        So, by and large, you would say that he’s not fit for purpose? I should say there’s a world if difference between disagreeing about something as completely inconsequential as politics and making offensive remarks about another person’s disability.

        • Wessex Man

          Well he’s fit for purpose for promoting himself and his idiotic ideals. The rest of his behaviour shows what a dim witted stupid person he is.

          • The Red Bladder

            Are they truly ideals though or one man’s vision of what is appealing to a type of voter or, perhaps rather more worryingly, what he feels may garner the maximum possible amount of press attention? You have met the man – demagogue or ego maniac?

            • Wessex Man

              The latter, with a lot of racism bubbling over.

        • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

          If you really think politics is ‘completely inconsequential’ then someone ought to offend you double quick.

          i will,start…you are an ill informed twerp who should stick to playing with Percy.

    • sfin

      I agree with you – and I also agree with Wessex Man!
      My complaint with the left has been that they always attach moral to their opinion. In this case, being in favour of mass immigration makes them a good person, so if you disagree, that makes you a bad person – a xenophobe, a racist etc. In this way they close down debate and that is a fascist tactic.
      Godfrey Bloom’s remark was both tasteless and irrelevant to the debate. Surely we (UKIP) don’t need to resort to the tactics of the fascist left? I think, what a lot of people, find refreshing about UKIP is their open, honest, tell-it-like-it-is approach to politics.
      Nigel Farage has been entirely consistent with UKIP spokesmen – you are entitled to your views – but don’t bring the party into disrepute. Godfrey Bloom has done so on several occasions, his egocentricity has become both mindless and, more importantly, irrelevant and so he has to go.

  • johnslattery

    Frankie Boyle makes a living out of cruelly mocking the disabled, and still shifts DVDs. Bloom’s smack in line with the (horrible) times we live in. Just being edgy, innit.

  • Eddie

    The reason why so many patrician upper–middle class privileged wet Tories at Oxford are not against immigration is because it does not affect them or their families in a negative way. Au contraire, mummy’s house has tripled in value because of it, as have those investment flats bought by daddy; family firms make more profit from bringing workers’ wages down too; it’s easy to get cheap cleaners and au pairs and other servants; there are lots of new take-aways and ergo immigration is good for these selfish twerps.
    However, if only we could replace them in their jobs by immigrants who will work for half of what they get. Mary Beard could be first – I am sure many Polish former-teachers have a better knowledge of the dates of history than politically correct smug self-righteous ranters like hers. Academics like her are a waste of space.
    This country had 30,000 net immigration for decades. Then in the 90s that rose to 100 and then 200,000. There were 2 million immigrants from 1945 to around 1990, who had 2 million offspring (including me!); there have been 4 million incomers since the early 90s.
    People can see that and how our cities have been invaded by Africans and Asians. Only 14% of those in Newham, London are white now – that was the old East End (which is now in Essex and Spain).

    • mary beard

      hang on… I plead guilty to all kinds of crime, but honestly self-righteousness not top of the list. if it’s knowledge of dates, I wont win.. if it’s understanding of history, better chance!

      • outraged

        Yep, especially that the excellence at the later is so objective !
        Are you prettier and more loveable too ?

        • mary beard

          err? pardon/ not sure i follow the bit about being prettier, but I may have misunderstood

          • David Kay

            boooo @ your support for mass immigration. You were funny on QT when you were regurgitating some propaganda about how the City of Boston could cope with it and it was a better place for it, then a local put you in your place telling you how bad things really were. Your face was funny when she shot you down. You might know history, but you dont understnd the present or that UKIP is the future.

            Allahs not akbar, Farage is. Vote UKIP

            • mary beard

              Well, just for info, the “propaganda” was a report from the local council, which has subsequently won a prize. And I really dont think that my face has anything to do with this.

              • Wessex Man

                No but your prattling away on Question Time about immigration, while plainly knowing nothing about it shows you like Blair, Brown and Comeron are part of the problem not the answer!

                • mary beard

                  Have you read the report by Boston council? It is well worth it.. lays out all kind of information and arguments on all sides. It also busts a view myths on the local circumstances.
                  Prattling? Dont think so

                • Eddie

                  However you spoke on QT, you showed yourself to be utterly out of touch, lacking in basic empathy for others who have been negatively affected by immigration, and just so typically self-righteous and smug – as though the great academic who has spent 30 years reading history tomes and lecturing has the right to lecture real working people about what they should or should not think about immigration. In a word, you utterly lacked EMPATHY!
                  And the implication from you was, as ever from the pc hypocrites, that if you are against immigration you are therefore a racist, a bigot and not a ‘right-thinking’ person – and in doing that you were just parroting the BBC line, and the ethos that has ruined our school system so much than many youngsters are illiterate, innumerate, ignorant and unfit for work – hence the need for East European workers who benefit from a traditional, knowledge-based selective school system that twerps like you wrecked.

                • David Kay

                  nonsense. Like the residents of Boston said and told you, the report was a load of rubbish. Local services couldnt cope. Theyre the ones living with it. It doesnt matter what some politically motivated pro immigration report says are myths. The facts show that report was a myth.

                  Thats why everyone is leaving Boston because its like a foreign country full of drunks causing trouble, swamping services that are at breaking point. Just because a bunch of middle class marxists say everything is ok doesnt make it so

                • roystonvasey

                  The bottom line is that there is no benefit to us in becoming an ethnic minority in our own country,and the same goes for all the other white countries being colonised.

                  There is also no benefit to us in discriminating against ourselves,in not allowing us white equivalents of Operation Black Vote, Black Police Officers Accociation,Black Society of Lawyers,black officer in the NUS,black section in the NUJ, and in allowing the constant witch hunts by the media against those who support white equality.

                • James Lovelace

                  “anti-racist” is code for “anti-white”.

              • Eddie

                Oh it won a prize, did it? What, like those 1960s and 70s monstrosities of university buildings? Like many a vile dictator in history?
                Ever heard of confirmation bias, love? The council has a vested interested in loving immigration and all councils are staffed by the same sort of state-funded leftwing jobsworth as universities. Immigration is never bad for these selfish, greedy twerps – who like you Beard utterly lack empathy for ordinary working people, even as you eulogise the dead ones!
                Mary Beard’s argument for unlimited mass immigration which deeply hurts and damages ordinary working people and threatens their well-being and culture: ‘the report that said immigration is great – [written by the ethno-philiac local council]- ‘won a prize’. Hoorah!
                But hey – so did Hitler.
                Twit.
                Well, all I can say is so do you, love. Prize wally of the week – and that against some rather stiff competition!

              • David Kay

                awarding it a prize just shows how out of touch the pro immigration ruling elite is. They actually believe their own propaganda. And your face has everything to do with it, you were made to look stupid

              • John Lea

                Blimey, a council report winning a prize – would that be in the fiction category? Or had that prize already been claimed by the Office of National Crime Statistics, for their magical realist masterpiece detailing the latest drop in crime for 2012/13?

            • outraged

              What is so terrible about having a few ethnic shops in Boston, like those pictured in Daily Mail ?

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272195/The-town-thats-We-visit-town-countrys-biggest-influx-East-Europeans.html

              I am strongly against the mass immigration, but the comments below the Daily Mail article made me wonder. Are they getting their priorities right?

      • ADW

        If this is really Mary Beard, may I first say congrats (and good luck) engaging in online debate given you can’t be under any illusion what you’re getting yourself into. May I say second that I don’t think your past abuse had much to do with being female (different terms of abuse would otherwise have been used, but abuse it would have been all the same). Third, I really do think you are hopelessly out of touch on immigration, which hurts the poor but rarely the wealthy, for obvious reasons.

        The rich get cheap labour and inflated house prices. The poor get the same – and lose accordingly.

        • mary beard

          Thanks. But debating is, in a way, my job. My point is a simple one. If I, or anyone, says something unpopular or controversial on immigration, why should we get ABUSE? Criticism, argument, debate, yes.. but abuse? Issues such as immigration are too important to handle by slinging abuse. Or to put it another way, my views on immigration have nothing whatsoever to do with the size, shape or smell of my vagina. I think we can all agree on that.

          • ADW

            Of course. I have often wondered what the worst of the online a users did before the internet (a question for historians? :-)) presumably they were just as angry and ill mannered, but what was the outlet? I admit to enjoying what I like to call southern sad dad rock music, but below every YouTube video is a comment from someone wanting to kill Justin Bieber because his music isn’t as good. Go figure.

            But back to your views on immigration. I do think you miss the impact on the poor, not just with regard to jobs, housing and public services. It is they who find their way of life disrupted and I wonder how many would vote to allow mass immigration. Look at the east end over the past ten years – the white community all left. Because they got rich, said the bbc optimistically, but even if true that still shows the white working class didn’t want to live in a multicultural area …

            • mary beard

              Thanks. I hope I do not underestimate people’s feeling of exclusion etc. I think there is some real desperation — and I think that it is easy to point the finger at immigration. But the causes are much more complex (while no doubt including the perceived effects of immigration, that is not the single or even main issue). I think something also about the kind of misogynistic abuse I get… it IS horrible misyogyny (it really isnt fun getting threats of rape and decapitation), but the roots of it are more complex. A whole set of feelings of exclusions are using misogyny as an idiom, which is rather different.

              • ADW

                Ok 2 points.

                1. There is no doubt some misogyny in the online abuse, but I think we agree it’s not the only factor; plenty of ad hominen trash gets said about the male commentators with whom the online aggressors disagree.

                2. But equally while immigration isn’t the only concern of the poor, it is indeed something they are concerned about and it is not just the economic impact. If we live in a democracy, their views should be respected, even if you disagree with them.

                • mary beard

                  I agree. And it’s interesting that men get branded with the c word too. I don’t think I am guilty of not ‘respecting’ the views of others — disagree, argue, explain why I think they are wrong, but no denial of respect or the right to hold divergent views.

                • Eddie

                  No, it is not ‘interesting’; it is obvious. The C word (as you so coyly say) is a strong swearword – no-one this gets branded by it at all. Get called it, often deservedly, but no branding going on. That’s just deliberate pity party, victimhood- craving hysterics.

                • ADW

                  Mmm I wouldn’t overanalyse the abusers’ choice of epithets, I don’t think they rival AE Housman (or Enoch Powell wearing his classicist’s hat for that matter) for textual analysis …

                  I’m glad you don’t respect divergent views out of hand. FWIW I think immigration is sufficiently complex to admit of a number of reasoned views. I don’t think it’s enough to say that the economy grows (though not necessarily the per capita economy) through immigration, or that some of them are nice people.

                  For the wealthy, immigration = cheap nannies, cheap and exotic restaurants, cheap gardeners and builders, increasing house prices and cheap labour for their businesses.

                  For the working class, immigration = priced out of lower end of the labour market, competition for both private and social housing, with ever-rising rent costs; pressure on schools, the NHS and other social servies; finding their children are in a class where a majority don’t even speak the language; increased crime rate; social tensions and the breakup of traditional close-knit communities and ways of life. Also the reintroduction of diseases (TB was effectively eradicated from this country twenty years ago, thanks to a huge influx from what used to be called the third world.

                  There will also be those immigrants (a minority perhaps amongst their community) who bring cultural expectations totally incompatible with those of this country, eg FGM, forced marriages and a general form of sexism that would appall the average Englishman or woman (I say English because the vast majority of immigrants come to England, not the other parts of the UK). Where are the feminists on this one? It can’t be an answer to girls being taken out of education and having their genitalia mutliated that it is somehow “their culture” (this means culture of their oppressors). The same could have been (and was) said to all the suffragettes: it was their culture, had been for centuries, was backed up in their religious texts and was confirmed by religious and community leaders.

                  There are also the internecine ethnic prejudices and conflicts we don’t want imported here either, eg Singhalese v Tamil hatred which is on display quite openly in Sri Lankan shops in Tooting, for example.

                  No-one disputes that _some_ immigration is a good thing. But we need to be clear about our expectations of the incomers – they are welcome to bring the good or neutral aspects of their culture, but will have to abandon those with which we disagree (racism, sexism, etc), keep their religion private, abide by our equality laws, learn our language and not break the criminal law. I hate to say it, but most countries in the world I have visited in Africa and Asia are awful places, and not because of the landscape, climate and natural resources. They are awful (except for tourists and the rich) because they operate brutal theocracies/dictatorships/corrupt democracies, discriminate against women, ignore the most vulnerable and cannot understand the rule of law.

                  Most of all, we need to keep a lid on numbers – unless we want Britain to be a giant island city, or Singapore writ large.

                • mary beard

                  Thanks for that piece of reasoned disagreement which is much appreciated. For what it’s worth, I have serious doubts about the woolly laissez faire multiculturalism (unmanaged and therefor cheap!) that was one the flavour of the month

                • ADW

                  You’re welcome, though I can’t help adding that it’s a sad state of affairs when one is thanked simply for offering reasoned agreement (not a criticism of you) … I’m glad to hear you disown multiculturalism, a pernicious doctrine which has caused so much harm to so many, ranging from Ray Honeyford in the 1980s to all the thousands of victims of forced marriage, FGM, domestic violence (Victoria Climbie got the headlines, because social services turned a blind eye to what they categorised as “African culture”, but frankly if her abusers had managed to stop just short of murder they’d probably still be at it. Your old adversary Rod Liddle blogged the other day about a police force commenting that there are whole districts where the police are never called, because the community “deals” with all trouble itself. Forgive me for lacking optimism about how they go about it.

                  But here’s the rub: if we accept only moderate amounts of immigration, then immigrants will have no choice other than to integrate into the norms of British society, without any state compulsion to do so. If we accept a new city’s worth every year, then they will form ghettos and not assimilate, irrespective of what the British state might like them to do.

                  Further reading – have a look at Patrick West The Poverty of Multiculturalism and Ed West’s The Diversity Illusion. Both set out arguments much more fully than I can here.

                • mary beard

                  I dont think I disown multiculturalism — but I have become very suspicious of the laissez faire version of it we were sold in the 80s and 90s.

                • ADW

                  Which version do you own to then? It seems to me that it either means everyone being permitted their own way of life save where it conflicts with established norms in the host country (most obviously the criminal law) then it is really just classical liberalism in drag. I would support that policy, but calling it multiculturalism doesn’t really add anything.

                  Alternatively, it means something like labelling children with the religion and customs of their parents, and turning a blind eye even to criminal acts, in which case I don’t support it at all.

                  Seems to me the likes of Ken Livingstone think it is a way to buy block votes, by dividing everyone on ethnic or sectarian lines and then offering favours to the ones most likely to vote for him. All very well until he found he had promised to support the gay community, which his other pet voters the muslims had less kind things to say about …

                • mary beard

                  well I would like to say some more secularist version.. but it has to be said that France hasn’t succeeded too well there. My bottom line is that it must be possible for human beings of different cultures to live together, and indeed with globalization they have to. But we have to invest in it (with cash inter alia), nit simply hope it will all flourish untended!

                • James Lovelace

                  ” it must be possible for human beings of different cultures to live together, and indeed with globalization they have to. ”

                  On the day of a major EDL demo in Luton, David Cameron said “multiculturalism has failed.” Bizarrely, Tommy Robinson said “no, it’s not – it’s islam that is the problem”.

                  But the racist Leftist elite will not even do muslims the respect of reading the koran and looking at what muslims sincerely believe to be the will of god.

                  koran 5:51 — “do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends”

                • ADW

                  I’m certainly with you on the secularist front, but again wouldn’t call it multiculturalism. (I’m writing a book on this at the moment, but won’t bore anyone with the details or puffery). Best if the state removes itself from religion, meaning no established church, no religious schools, no exemptions from public duty on the basis of religious belief etc. (Wouldn’t go as far as banning the burqa in public, though I’d refuse to allow it in say court or airport security etc) This is total anathema to some cultures, hence it needs a different name to multiculturalism.

                  Not sure who should be investing cash. The state is incredibly inefficient at raising money and spending it, and the minute it starts handing out grants for this and that it gets captured by the prevailing ideology, or gets subjected to the governing party’s desire to buy votes. I know some people in London who have tried for years to get theatre funding, but get nowhere because they can’t tick enough ethnic boxes.

                  On the other hand, commerce is the one great leveller – as was once said, countries which trade together do not go to war together. (This, one might recall, was the idea behind the EU way back at the beginning, before it got captured by career politicians and public servants). Multicultural London has no racial problems in St John’s Wood, for example, or Bishop’s Avenue, where rich Saudis live happily next door to rich Jews, but there is racial and cultural problems aplenty in the poorer areas.

                • mary beard

                  gosh we are reaching some (bits of) agreement here (?). Spot on about poverty. For me, that is the real bedrock issue.

                • James Lovelace

                  “Spot on about poverty.”

                  And the mass importation of immigrants into Britain was done to keep the wages of the working-class down. Only now that immigration is affecting the middle-class jobs, is the topic allowed to be discussed.

                • ADW

                  Agreement – now that would be a worrying thought … 🙂 (Don’t worry, I disagreed totally with the conclusion to your otherwise enjoyable programme and book on Pompeii). Happily I suspect we might agree on the problem of poverty, but disagree on what to do about it! Especially on a global level. I have been pondering what the impact on Russia has been from the that so much of its oil money is laundered on the London property market and elsewhere in the UK. And what happens to third world countries whose best and brightest find their way here and, unlike Australia/NZ/Canada, invariably don’t go back at any point.

                • mary beard

                  Thank you. It is exchanges like this that make online debate worthwhile despite all the cr*p. Would love to know what you book is going to be.

                • ADW

                  That’s very kind Mary. I might send it to you when finished – perhaps then you can offer a balanced review/rip it to pieces/praise it to the heavens (delete as appropriate …)

                • mary beard

                  thank you!

                • oddball1776

                  Nice Mary, like it.

                  Future leader of the EDL here guys, believe!.

                  Just give it time (and possibly a mugging/stabbing or two).

                • James Lovelace

                  “Just give it time (and possibly a mugging/stabbing or two).”

                  I know of one deluded gay Brazilian in London who has been mugged + brutally assaulted 3 times by gangs of black men. He still thinks unlimited immigration is a good thing.

                  James Burnham says that Leftism is how a society deludes itself to conceal its decline.

                • oddball1776

                  It is an absolute wonder. I’ve seen it called a mental illness, and a disease (leftism).

                  You’d think it would be an interesting case for further study.

                  A shame then that all academics/anyone with half a brain – are fully paid up advocates of the multiCult themselves.

                  I guess us oiks (everyone else) will just have to accept that we will never get to the bottom of it!

                • James Lovelace

                  “I have serious doubts about the woolly laissez faire multiculturalism (unmanaged and therefor cheap!)”

                  Scratch any Leftist, and you find a dictator underneath.

                  Perhaps you prefer the Singaporean version of multiculturalism — they do not permit two families of the same religion/race to live next door to each other.

                  Is that the kind of management you have in mind? Muslim countries don’t permit multiculturalism at all – non-muslims must know their inferior status. We let muslim women (or men) wander in public in burkas, but if we go to muslim countries and try to drink alcohol in public it’s not permitted.

                  Multiculturalism was never a planned doctrine – it was used as a sticking-plaster in Britain when muslims started going round threatening to kill those they did not like. Before 1989, the word was virtually unheard of.

                • James Lovelace

                  “There will also be those immigrants (a minority perhaps amongst their community) who bring cultural expectations totally incompatible with those of this country, eg FGM, forced marriages”

                  FGM has been made explicitly illegal in Britain by 2 laws in 30 years. Yet not one cultural enricher has been convicted. It is now estimated that there are 170,00 victims.

                  When you consider that this means that 2 parents + a cutter were involved, then there are approx. 400,000 people (mostly muslims) in Britain who have taken part in this illegal activity. That is about 1 in 4 muslim adults.

                • ADW

                  Sorry for the length of replies, but I didn’t want to be accused of failing to offer reason and evidence. Here is some evidence worth chewing over: a judgment of the High Court on electoral fraud amongst some Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2572.html&
                  query=Ali+and+v+and+Bashir&method=boolean

                  It is not small scale, it is not new (as far back as 2005 the same judge said it would shame a banana republic) and it is very much the result of importation of tribal norms from failed states. Tower Hamlets is experiencing similar problems too, as documented by Andrew Gilligan for the Telegraph.

                  Dominic Grieve AG tried to speak out on the issue, but was immediately shouted down and sent for political re-education, which tells you about the fear of elites about not being seen to be on message.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Do you think it is respecting the views of others to constantly label them for those views? ‘Mahknovist’, ‘revanchist’, ‘anarchist’, ‘little englander’ and then to use the diminutive form of a Christian name in the belief that might intimidate or convey superiority – ‘Nico’ – or to patronise someone as ‘Son’, or to use assertive forms of address like ‘Listen’, ‘Heed this’, etc.?

                  It’s great not to resort to abuse but you also need to consider the many forms of provocation and intimidation constantly being wielded here by those on your side of the argument.

                • mary beard

                  well there’s been quite a lot of calling me “love” on this site today. I dont much like it.. but not as bad as a rape threat

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You dodged the question. I didn’t ask you whether you liked it. I asked you whether you thought it was respecting the views of others?

                • mary beard

                  calling someone ‘love’ is not often a way of showing particular respect for their views! but no hard and fast rule i guess

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I would consider that to fall perfectly within the criteria of being patronising – in the context of this thread. A bit different if the milkman or postman uses it although even that is now becoming frowned on as a term of familiar endearment.

                • ButcombeMan

                  it is actually a geographical thing. in Derbyshire lots of people get called ” chuck “.
                  it is meaningless . you sould not take offence

                • oddball1776

                  Well, you are quite a sweety Mary!

                  I respect my elders and betters, and would never deign to call you “love”. But, as another poster mentioned previously, an awful lot of that is deliberate pranking/wind ups – called ‘trolling’ online.

                  It can get fairly extreme (as I realise you have found out already) but you do need to consider this before you respond.

                  There are entire sites with huge followings – dedicated to winding up ‘lefties’, and they are very good at it. The crazier your ideologies become, and the more authoritarian – the stronger and more extreme the backlash.

                  Human nature I guess.

                  All the best!

                • mary beard

                  well thank you. i’m quite pleased that I havent got wound up!

                • oddball1776

                  Hehe.
                  You handled yourself impeccably. As ever.

                • mary beard

                  thanks for saying

              • Eddie

                Typical academic speak – and just as dodgy, spurious, sanctimonious and pointless as most of the drivel that dribbled out of the orifices of overpaid ovine twerps at our dumbed down degree factories (they used to be universities, y’know). If you can’t stand the heat…

                No-one posting anything online (on Twitter, emails, Fbook) should EVER be arrested. (the exception would be those inciting violence or recruiting Islamic terrorists – but then, UK universities turn a blind eye to that, eh?)

                YOU CAN BLOCK ANYONE ON EMAIL AND TWITTER. Therefore, that is what wimps who can’t stand the slings and arrows of lively debate (and that includes what you call ‘abuse’) should block people or maybe just stay in their sad ivory towers being licked up to by kowtowing undergraduates (oh how academics adore their status). Read up on the 18th century. Can George IV claim abuse and call the plods to go get Gillray then? Twerp!
                The police are utterly corrupt – they are using the Twitter craze to nick innocents (mostly young men sending their views to their sluggish ex-girlfriends) and thereby boost their arrest stats. The police have lost my trust utterly – they are now like the StB and deserve utter contempt from all right-thinking people who know abuse when they see it.
                It is called freedom of speech, love. You are against it like most lefties, but only when you do not agree with what is said, When you agree with the ‘abuse’, aimed at for example the BNP or the EDL or even the Daily Mail – you are all for it. HYPOCRITE!

              • James Lovelace

                “threats of rape and decapitation”

                Since you are a historian, perhaps you’d like to do some historical research into how the ordinary people of Britain started to think that decapitation was a suitable punishment for people who feel offended by what someone else says.

                I can point you to many examples of muslims in Britain decapitating and threatening to decapitate their enemies. Can you point me to examples where non-muslims were doing this, say between 1900 and 1989?

          • Hoot_Gibson

            Or to put it another way, my views on immigration have nothing whatsoever to do with the size, shape or smell of my vagina.

            What a disgusting analogy on a par with Bloom’s Richard 111’s retort.

            • mary beard

              I was saving you the exact words of the abuse I received. You have the sanitized version!

              • Eddie

                Yes, but, you are a grown up, aren’t you? Or had the institutionalisation of academia deformed you and left you in a permanent state of infantilisation where you cannot cope with being called names?
                As I said before: BLOCK those who say naughty words on Twitter (I am NOT calling anyone an abuser to doing that though). Why can’t you do that? Ask a man if the IT is too tricky for you.
                I get the distinct feeling you adore playing the victim – and, moreover, that you deliberately stating posting here and trolling and stalking me with the aim of provoking the same response. J’accuse, Beard.

              • ButcombeMan

                if you get that abuse on twitter it tells one something about twitter and the people who use twitter.
                I am fairly active in various conversations and in various (but consistent ) pen names. I do not have a twitter account. nor should you. you are a grown up.

                if you venture into such a place, you know what you are getting into. Please do not bleat about it afterwards.

                • mary beard

                  When there are bullies in the playground, we dont suggest that the other kids leave; we deal with the bullies!

                • Druth

                  You are the bully Mary. With you its all about position, sophism, and being so so reasonable.

                • mary beard

                  odd definition of bullying! if we give up being reasonable we are lost.

                • Druth

                  You don’t know what a sophist is? You don’t think that people can be bullied with words? Come on dear, you’re the expert at it. You’re only on here moaning because the little people won’t play by your rules.

                • mary beard

                  What I find so sad is that there is a really important issue at stake here which needs full and honest discussion, and yet so many people on this site simply abuse rather than argue. I fear that people do not to justice to the issue they want to raise by the nasty abusive tones in which they do it. Politeness in disagreement doesn’t seem to much to ask, honestly.

                • Druth

                  Mary, you’ve just been handed your hat, it’s time to leave.

                • Trofim

                  Mary Beard (if you are THE Mary Beard – and how do we know?), it’s a pity you have to endure abuse here. I want to say, there are lots of other reasons to oppose mass immigration without any reference to ethnicity, economy, pensions, ageing population etc. I oppose any avoidable increases in population because I believe England already has far too many people in it. I’ve heard all the stats about how little of the country is developed, how you can see loads of green fields from an aeroplane and so on. Fly over Russia, Canada, the USA, Scandinavia if I want a comparison. I would like to see a declining population. Some things are more important than this “prosperity” which, apparently, we have to have perpetually increasing quantities of in order to be happy. That’s a fallacy. I’d much rather my descendants see horizons, a starry sky instead of light pollution, hear a skylark instead of a recording of a skylark. When I was born the population of the UK was 49 millions, and by international standards it was quite densely populated then. Enough is enough. I’m happy to be a little less prosperous and be a bit richer in space. So if you could just bear in mind that I am not the only human being who feels this way, I would be grateful.

                • Eddie

                  Nice butter-wouldn’t-melt act, Mary mary quite you know what.
                  But you provoke deliberately – you either state or insinuate those who disagree with you are inferior to you, ignorant, racist, bigoted etc.
                  You wind people up and then play the poor wickle victim. How nasty, snide and manipulative! But not uncommon in women – (it’s innate and evolved, as a way of manipulating power to achieve your goals in a vindictive and underhand way, which women had to do because they are less physically strong than men and would have been pregnant or looking after kids much of the time during history) – and nor is using the police to get revenge on men you dislike.

                • mary beard

                  But I think you surely agree that this is too important subject to resort to abuse. Though it is interesting that you treat straight and, I hope, polite comments as somehow manipulative (when abuse isnt?). I have not made any insinuations so far as I know about inferiority. I do probably know more about ancient Rome than most people on this site, but it is my job and hardly relevant.

                • Simon McTuffington

                  is it true homosexuality thrived in the time of ancient Rome, dirty italians

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Tell that to ‘telemachus’. When he treats those who disagree with him with respect I’ll reciprocate.

                • mary beard

                  I’ve lost the plot I’m afraid. What has Telemachus got to do with this?!

                • oddball1776

                  An extreme contrarian lefty troll who usually hangs out here all day, every day (Telemachus).

                • mary beard

                  thanks for explaining

                • crosscop

                  He is on another blog at the moment saying that critics of Islam should be punished.

                • James Lovelace

                  He seemed incapable of responding to me there.

                • James Lovelace

                  I had a few polite words with Telemachus yesterday on another Spectator discussion. He seemed to run off with his tail between his legs.

                • James Lovelace

                  “Politeness in disagreement doesn’t seem to much to ask, honestly.”

                  I can’t have any respect for a historian, at one of the most prestigious institutions in the world, who says that “the United States had it [the massacre of 3000 innocent people] coming.”

                  You should have been hounded out of Oxford when you said that. I can feel the vomit rising every time I see your face on TV.

                  It would be bad enough if some ignoramus said it. But no, a fucking professor of history at Oxford. If you’d said that about 3000 muslims who were killed by a drone strike, you would be sacked within the week.

                • mary beard

                  Oxford doesnt have much to do with this. I am a “fucking professor” (of Classics) at Cambridge.

                • James Lovelace

                  Interesting — the only time you’ve deigned to respond to the last dozen comments I made to you, is where you get to demonstrate your pedantry. The 60 mile difference between the universities of Oxford and Cambridge matters to less than 1% of the population.

                  You ignored every other point I made. Which shows you’re not really here to “debate” with the hoi polloi.

                  The substantive point remains: if you had made those remarks about any of the Left’s mascots “having it coming”, you’d have been hounded from your job. And the same double standards protect you on Twitter, but are not applied to people like the mother, 2 year old son, or wife of Tommy Robinson.

                  You are so clueless about these double standards, you don’t even realise that people like him have had 100s of death threats from people who have got proven form that they will kill those who criticise them.

                  You have a police car outside your home, yet Tommy Robinson gets Al Shabab making videos where they promise to kill him. He gets no police protection, just hounded by the police.

                  But you feel like you’re the one who is hard done by.

                • mary beard

                  i deplore threats on anyone. two things

                  1) re not replying to your points: have had to be selective and choose the most substantive issues (am working today, mostly)

                  2) I deplore threats against anyone, and noone should be abandoned by the police, even if they have a string of convictions (like Tommy Robinson). But from the outside, not knowing the full facts, it is irresponsible to comment.

                • James Lovelace

                  I agree that no-one should be threatened. But it seems that “social media” are leading some people who live in polite rarefied environments to find that very many of the population of England don’t live in such rarefied environments.

                  And I actually really like your history programmes. But I think that you Leftist Luvvies have no idea of the double-standards you apply to those who you don’t agree with.

                  As for Tommy Robinson – his having a string of convictions is supposed to be completely irrelevant. Isn’t being punished by the courts supposed to be the way a civilised society does things? Anjem Choudary, who thinks that Britain “had it coming” with 7/7 is given police protection (when there is no history of “islamophobes” going and killing muslims); yet with a well-established history of muslims killing non-muslims, our “civilised” society leaves Tommy Robinson and his pre-school children undefended.

                  The people around the EDL were routinely treated by the “socialists” and the media as “scum, chavs, racists, fascists, fat, ugly, lowlife, thick, retarded, etc.”

                  And the standards by which you expect to be treated were not the standards by which they were treated.

                  If right-wing people were as vile to their enemies as Leftists or muslims, you would probably be dead, or at the very least, be jobless. But clearly the right-wing are far more decent than that. You don’t get right-wing people going round with t-shirts emblazoned with the face of mass-murderer Breivik, but you get left-wing people going round with t-shirts emblazoned with the face of mass-murderer Che Guevara.

                • mary beard

                  thank you for some of that! I did say that T Robinson deserved proper support whether he has a string of convictions or not; but I think you will see why it is hard to feel the heart bleeding (but yes, that is irrelevant).

                  I would be the very first to attack the growing gap between rich and poor in this country. I am not rich, I do live is a good place — but not one that is as remotely idyllic as people imagine. (I was sent canvassing when I was a student into areas of town of, to me, unbelievable poverty).I am not a hereditary toff (my mum would have loved to go to uni, but her parents just couldn’t afford it).

                  I used to think that there was a clear moral distinction between the left and right. I am now far less certain (which is partly why I dislike attacks on “lefties” so much…it crudifies the morality of politics).

                  I have good friends on left and right of politics. I try to engage as best I can (which is why I have spent so much time here today!). m

                • James Lovelace

                  One of my friends is very knowledgeable about ancient civilisations, and can’t sing your praises enough.

                  I know you are not one of the typical members of the elite. But you are there now, and you get invited back on to QT time and time again. Despite what you said about 9/11 being worse than anything Tommy Robinson has said (and he’s even publicly apologised many times for things he’s said on the spare of the moment during his unwritten speeches).

                  You seem to be totally unaware of the fascism of the Left. The comparison between t-shirts of Guevara and Breivik shows the moral and political difference between the two sides. (Mussolini, Mosley, and Hitler were all socialists, and never disavowed their socialism).

                  The Left are happy to abandon many principles in order to use muslims in the fight against the establishment (the Left are utterly silent on FGM, muslim jew-hatred, endemic homophobia, political violence, oppression by muslims of atheists and non-muslim religions). If Thailand had bombed Kabul over the Bamiyan Buddhas, and killed 3,000 innocent muslims, and you had said “muslims had it coming”, then muslims and the Left would have destroyed you and your career. Your life probably would be genuinely in danger.

                  What you don’t appear to understand, is that no matter what you have seen of “poverty” in Cambridge, there are people who have suffered terribly because of immigration into Britain. The police have been politicised to only care about the issues of the Left, because the Right don’t hound them the way the Left do.

                  I know of liberal-lefties, who have loads of gay and black friends, who live in muslim-dominated areas, and they joined the EDL. Why? Because they were the victims of racist assaults by muslims, but when they went to the police, the police refused to even record it as a racist crime, because they had no witnesses. I have nice, liberal friends (who even have muslims in their extended family) who have been driven from islamised parts of London by racist violence against them when they are out in the park with a toddler.

                  The elite deny the country is being “islamised”. But I ask you again — when did these threats to kill those one disagrees with come from? I’ve been involved in gay politics since about 1980, and until 5 years ago, I never heard of gay people sending death threats to their opponents. Where did people start threatening to decapitate/behead people come from? This is islamistion — we learn not just to recognise the difference between a hijab and a burka, but we also learn that threatening to kill people is an acceptable response in our society. This evil has been tolerated since 1989.

                  Those who should have stood up for free speech, liberty, tolerance, non-violence, integration, have been silent for 30 years – many scared that they would be killed by muslims. The liberal elite have allowed this country to slide towards violence, meaning that now our words have to be policed, and people are threatened with imprisonment for using a poor choice of words (in the 1990s, Peter Tatchell was prosecuted by police for calling Hizb-ut Tahrir “Nazis” — at that time Hizb ut Tahrir had been openly saying that gay people should be executed). But of the 332 people convicted of terrorism in Britain in the last 13 years, all of them are muslims.

                  The vast majority of people in Britain are concerned about islamisation, but they are too scared to publicly speak about it, for fear they will be killed by muslims or branded racists. What you have experienced is that vile tolerance for threats of violence spreading throughout society. If you weren’t on Twitter, you would probably still be unaware of how bad things have got.

                  I know muslims who have stood up at leftwing meetings, and begged them to start opposing islamo-nazis. They said “I can’t speak out against them, because they will say I am no longer a muslim, and my life will be in danger”. This was said not 5 miles from Westminster.

                  The direction our country is taking is clear. And rather than deal with it, our media lie, our politicians lie. And if someone is not deterred by threats of violence from muslims and the fascist Left, then the organs of the state go all out to destroy that person’s life. That is what happened to Tommy Robinson.

                  Finally just to show you how the media have lied about EDL for the last 4 years, here is a video of Tommy Robinson when he and black men from EDL appeared on Newsnight and burned a swastika. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8303786.stm

                  Does that really match the concerted image the media have pursued, that EDL are racists, nazis?

                • Eddie

                  Are you a child then? No, you are a grown-up – though you are an academic living in an institution as detached from the real world as a mental home, so that has probably infantilised you into behaving like an infant.
                  Silly analogy – lazy and emotive. Act your age! If you can’t stand the heat on Twitter – don’t go on it. We need MORE freedom of speech in the UK, not less.
                  And you still have not said WHY you did not BLOCK those hurling ‘abuse’ and rude words at you on Twitter. Maybe you enjoyed the pity party eh?

                • James Lovelace

                  “When there are bullies in the playground, we dont suggest that the other kids leave; we deal with the bullies!”

                  Rubbish. The muslim bullies have been getting away with it for decades. But they are the mascots of the Left, and are given free rein. Not one muslim was arrested when they marched round the streets saying they would kill Salman Rushdie.

                  6 muslims from 1 family attacked and attempted to kill a lesbian, because she was having a relationship with their sister. This is what the victim said:

                  ‘I can’t work comfortably now and I think about people throwing acid in my face. Anyone Asian I don’t know could be associated with the people who attacked me. I have trouble sleeping.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545464/Youve-messed-wrong-Muslims-CCTV-images-dramatic-moment-three-women-tried-kidnap-rob-sisters-lesbian-lover-row-arranged-marriage.html

                  Note that: she feared that the muslim community as a whole were going to take massively disproportionate violence against her (acid in the face).

                  The death threats you got on Twitter Prof. Beard are YOUR chickens coming home to roost. The Leftist elite have ensured that Britain faces a violent future.

                • ButcombeMan

                  But Mary, the point is, you are not a kid, you are a grown up.
                  Most intelligent adults know what twitter is, you wandered into a kindergarten, by choice.
                  Rod Liddle (of whom I am no fan) pointed out recently what your twittering said about you.
                  You have been treated civilly here I hope. I have not read every post.

                • James Lovelace

                  Twitter is a playground for narcissists. I’m always delighted when some Oxbridge-educated MP makes a slip-up on twitter. If a political argument can be conducted in 160 words, it’s probably crap.

          • Eddie

            I think you’ll find those who have been telling the truth about immigration for years have been the target of massive abuse from self-righteous out of touch over-privileged twerps like you – in your unsackable overpaid state-funded jobs in academia and other fake industries.
            Abuse? Try going against the ‘politically correct’ anti-white anti-male pro-multiculturalism ethos in the education system or the BBC. Then you’ll know abuse. And what about the constant abuse you and other leftwing academics and feminists fling at men and those who do not share your silly ‘politically correct’ leftie prejudice?
            You deliberately provoked and enjoyed the ‘abuse’ (ie rude words) aimed at you. You could have blocked people as could the victimhood-craving femitwits who have cost taxpayers so many millions. The police are idiots and overstepping the mark in a very serious, quasi-SS, manner these days.

            • mary beard

              Am I alone in thinking that threats of rape, decapitation, bombing etc are not ways to have a proper discussion of thinks that matter. I hope not.

              • Eddie

                So why did you not block people on Twitter.
                My opinion: like many leftie feminutters you adore being a victim. Thus, you provoke that response.
                And no, I don’t think anyone should ever be arrested for what is clearly an online barney – GROW UP, LOVE!
                Have you ever calculated (ask a man, they’re innately better at maths) how much public money is wasted on silly prosecutions because of complaints by professional femi-victims like you are others who also seem unaware how to block senders of tweets? 8 figures. Wasted to help our dodgy police boost their arrest stats. How very SS.

                • James Lovelace

                  “So why did you not block people on Twitter.”

                  That’s exactly what I thought about these people. Twitter and Facebook have mechanisms to block these things.

                  Many Leftists and muslims go out to provoke a response and when they get it, they then go bleating to Tell Mama or the police.

              • kevin thorpe

                No you’re not Mary. They have to be confronted, or they (and/or their ideas) will take over. Power to you elbow MB, power to your elbow.

              • John Lea

                Would you accept that your position – working at Cambridge University, and living (presumably) in a very very nice area – means that you have not been directly affected by mass immigration in the same way that, say, a poorly educated roof builder living in Bermondsey might have been, and therefore your views – although well expressed – are made from a position of privileged detachment?

                Of course I’m not saying that you have no right to hold or express those views, but you must be aware that when ordinary people (whose lives, in many cases, have been damaged as a result of mass immigration in recent years) see someone in your lofty position, and with your educational advantages, making Panglossian remarks about the subject, it is very likely to grate.

                • mary beard

                  Of course I accept that. But Cambridge is not the leafy blonde place of popular mythology! The school nearest to me is largely “non white”, with a wide range of different first languages.
                  I think you second point is important — that you cannot say (eg) that only people in Boston can talk about Boston. I don’t think my remarks were Panglossian (they were addressed to the specific question of whether the local social services could cope — and the answer given in the local council’s report, which I had read cover to cover, was broadly ‘yes’). There is plenty of material which would support my overall position (which is not to say that that makes it necessarily correct — part of the trouble is getting accurate comparable data). But the bottom line is that we have to listen and debate, not abuse and threaten,

                • Eddie

                  I assume your tolerance would extend to people like Nick Griffin then (who, no matter what you think of him or his views, has suffered way more abuse than you ever will – and from those claiming they are tolerant too!).
                  No, thought not.
                  People like you can’t even listen to those who speak common sense politely and reasonably, like Nigel Farage – who gets way more abuse than you too.

                • mary beard

                  Abuse is almost always the weapon of those who cannot mount a reasoned argument. I will argue with anyone, and do my very best not to abuse.

                • kingzog1

                  ” I will argue with anyone, and do my very best not to abuse.”

                  Virtually every comment you’ve made here has made a reference to that abuse.

                  The fact that very stupid people use internet anonymity (or indeed any anonymity) to get away with rudeness is not exactly new to people who’ve commented online for more than a very short time.

                  E.g.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect

                  Memorably summed up here

                  http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

                  Now this is a description of how things are, not how things should be. Clearly the abuse you suffered is not a good thing and I’m not going to attempt to do anything but to condemn it. Still complaining about this online is a bit like complaining about monkeys flinging their poo in the zoo. It’s not going to convince the monkeys to change because they can’t. In fact the more outraged you get the more emotionally gratifying it is for the poo throwers. In Internet land this is known as ‘feeding the trolls’ and is generally seen as a bad idea.

                  Why not just ignore the trolls and instead engage with people with some substantive objection to what you have to say? Or, if you really are Mary Beard of Question Time fame, why not use your contacts to make a TV program where you go and meet some non Oxbridge people who are concerned about the effect immigration has on social services. E.g. the woman who disagreed with you on Question Time?

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xVYev5-58

                  Why not go and meet some people in Boston and see if her comments are accurate? I’m sure someone with your contacts could get this sort of program made.

                  Right now it seems like you seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow one of the trolls and that substantive objection to your ideas is impossible. Rather than actually listen to what Ms Bull said you keep changing the subject to what the trolls said.

                  That seems to me to be an intellectually very dishonest position to take.

                • James Lovelace

                  Did Mary Beard complain about the threats from the violent, fascist UAF, who intimidated the Oxford Union debating society to dis-invite Tommy Robinson? I very much doubt it.

                  This Leftist elite do not believe in democracy. They do not believe that the demos should be allowed to implement any viewpoint that is contrary to their Leftist religion.

                  In the real world, the Left and muslims are assassinating those with whom they disagree.

                  The killer of Pim Fortuyn is set to be released this year.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Pim_Fortuyn

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm

                  This is the world created by Mary Beard, and her pro-islam, pro-mass immigration Leftist elite. And now she bleats about a bit of online abuse — threats of decapitation were not a common part of British debate before 1989, but she refuses to acknowledge where this enrichment comes from. I daresay that Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh would trade a bit of abuse on Twitter for the cold graves in which their bodies rot.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  People ‘coped’ with the Blitz.

                • James Lovelace

                  “Cambridge is not the leafy blonde place of popular mythology”

                  No, but it hasn’t sunk like Peterborough — the town where after 9/11, a gang of muslims went out hunting for a white man to kill, and stumbled upon 17yo Ross Parker, who they brutally butchered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ross_Parker

                  Maybe those cultural enrichers thought that Britain “had it coming”.

                • JackyTreehorn

                  “But Cambridge is not the leafy blonde place of popular mythology” I would swap what you have in Cambridge with what I had to leave in Tottenham north London any day.
                  But back in the real world I’d bet against you taking me up on the offer.

                • John Lea

                  Totally agree. No one should be abused or threatened for holding a point of view.

                  I take issue with your first point, though. I, too, work in a university and enjoy the different mix of cultures and languages. However, there is a vast difference between appreciating diversity on a university campus, and seeing yourself – if you happen to be a local builder – undercut by vast swathes of Eastern European immigrants, or seeing your local health services stretched to breaking point, or seeing asylum-seekers and immigrants who’ve never contributed a penny in tax suddenly fast-tracked on council housing schemes – it’s very very frustrating.

                  Quoting a positive council report just doesn’t wash with people who actually have to live with the reality of mass immigration. Perhaps you should spend a year living on a deprived council estate in Bradford, Boston or South London and see if your view changes.

                • kingzog1

                  > The school nearest to me is largely “non white”, with a wide range of different first languages.

                  Did your kids go to a school like this? I note you went to Shrewsbury High School, which according to its website right now charges £8,289-£11,652 per year.

                  That’s the problem really that a lot of people have with the great and the good. They tell us that comprehensives are fine and fee paying or grammar schools are a great social evil and should be abolished but they and their kids go to fee paying schools. Something most people can’t afford.

                  So most people have no choice but to send their kids to a comprehensive, but kids from the comps have a very low chance of entering the ranks of the great and the good compared to kids who went to a fee paying school.

                  At some point this goes from being a mere class division and becomes something more like a caste division.

                • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

                  What also needs to be noted is that roof builders are of far more use than Oxbridge classicists.

                  Many university lecturers are in fact recipients of welfare to work. This is especially true of the arts brigade and theoretical physicists who spend their lives discussing such things as multiple universes and black holes.

                  One black hole is the money taxpayers are required to divert in their direction.

                  The developers of ‘brick shithouses’ and associated disposal sewers did more to improve the health well being and quality of life of more people than Shakespeare or any artist you care to name ever did.

              • crosscop

                Rape, decapitation and bombing? Have you been corresponding with Islamists, perchance, Mary?

                • mary beard

                  so far as I know (behind the anonymity of twitter) the vast majority were young white Britons (like those convicted of saying much the same, and worse, to Caroline Criado Perez).

                • crosscop

                  Joke, Mary. But did the police issue an Osman Warning – as they do with creditable threats – like those made by people who have not been convicted (of course) of saying much the same and worse to Tommy Robinson – who was the target of an actual terror attack?

                • mary beard

                  The police were very helpful as it happens. The only things I reported to them were direct threats of death and rape (ie not remarks on my genitalia). I don’t think one has any choice about that (and my university would insist on it anyway — imagine if it were true and an innocent student got caught in the crossfire). My worry is that the tone and abuse of many of the comments on this site (not yours) do nothing whatsoever to further the argument and indeed only serve to inflame.

                • crosscop

                  So, if there was no Osman Warning, the police did not actually take the threats seriously. That said – I agree with you that the tone of some commentators leaves a lot to be desired (manners maketh man) but as I believe that free speech is free speech, it’s just something we have to put up with.

                • mary beard

                  They took it seriously enough to have a police car outside my house.

                • James Lovelace

                  Meanwhile, after nights of attacks on me, the police did nothing. How nice to be not self-righteous Mary Beard.

                • crosscop

                  That is because you are TV’s Mary Beard. My son’s best mate was walking through Rusholme with his girlfriend when they were attacked by a car load of Pakistani youths. The lad was battered and the girl (or “white slag”) ended up with a bloody nose. They were told by their attackers to get out of “our town.” The police were given the car’s registered number and descriptions of the attackers. Nothing was done. The excuse was that they couldn’t trace who had been in the car on that night.
                  You really need to get out more, Mary.

                • James Lovelace

                  The police and childcare professionals have known for years of the horrific violence used by the muslim grooming gangs, and they still let the gangs carry on.

                  CROP calculate that these gangs had raped 10,000 schoolgirls. The girls who tried to get away with them were threatened with horrific violence to them and their families. The gangs meant it too — one girl had her tongue nailed to a table to show they meant business. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-546809/Is-political-correctness-stopping-police-ending-misery-teenage-sex-slaves.html

                  But only the death threats of violence made to muslims or to the sanitised elite matter to the police and the media.

                  We live in an apartheid state. If you are Mary Beard, the police take death threats to you seriously (especially if the threat comes from inarticulate white people). If the threat comes from muslims or black people, they police do nothing. If the victim is Tommy Robinson’s wife or mother, the police do nothing regardless of where the threats come from.

                • John Lea

                  Spot on. Some people really do not have a clue about the real world. I envy them.

                • Eddie

                  And have you worked out how much your histrionics cost the taxpayer then?
                  How much for that police car for days? £100,000?

                  And how much do our idot police spend on investigation all Twitter, Facebook and email squabbles. It must be well over £10 million. Plus the cost of prison for those victims locked up for freedom of speech in our new gyne-centric ethno-philiac police state. This sort of nonsense does not happen in France, Italy, Spain or the USA, where freedom of speech is sacred. We in the UK are sleepwalking into a police state.

                  Meanwhile, immigrants and the offspring of immigrants rob and mug with gay abandon on our city’s streets and the plods don’t even bother to try and catch these vibrant and diverse scumbags.

                • mary beard

                  Careful again, I didnt say how long the car was there. I dont think that freedom of speech includes the freedom to make death threats in any of the countries you mention; indeed I know that is not the case.

                • Eddie

                  I think the context is all – and clearly such a threat on social media is often just a joke or a wind-up. People like Nigel Farage have to put up with far worse than you – but maybe women are just weaker and more likely to moan?
                  Have you any idea how much public money is being wasted so self-righteous feminists can claim victimhood and enact revenge against a perceived male enemy? How many hospital wards would that pay for eh? How many real criminals could that catch? The police have lost my trust forever.
                  No-one should be arrested for ANYTHING posted on Twitter. Those who threaten violence should perhaps be investigated, especially Muslims – but then, Universities have a track record of tolerating and encouraging Islamofascism on campus, so I doubt your smug pc heart will let you agree with me.
                  I ask yet again: WHY did you not block those whose views you found offensive?

                • mary beard

                  The fact that you cant actually see what they say doesnt stop them saying it. It’s a bit ostrich like if you ask me.

                • James Lovelace

                  “The fact that you cant actually see what they say doesnt stop them saying it. It’s a bit ostrich like if you ask me.”

                  When the police finally came round to see the ACTUAL racist violence against me, their advice was to move to an area where I’d be with more white people.

                  Isn’t that a bit ostrich like?

                • James Lovelace

                  ” I dont think that freedom of speech includes the freedom to make death threats in any of the countries you mention; indeed I know that is not the case.”

                  That is not true. For decades muslims in Britain were able to get away with making death threats. Not one of them was prosecuted when they marched around Manchester, Bolton, Bradford threatening to kill Salman Rushdie.

                  20 years passed before muslims started to get a slap on the wrist for threatening to kill people — and only after they’d proven that they bloody well meant business, by blowing up trains and stabbing MPs.

                  And to this day, muslims have got away with issuing 100s of death threats to Tommy Robinson. NOT ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN PROSECUTED.

                  All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

                • James Lovelace

                  While the police have a car outside Beard’s house, or outside the house of a muslim where a packet of bacon was found, they are then not even visiting homes like mine to see the damage, and then they’re telling us that crime is falling.

                • John Lea

                  That’s because you were on QT and your case was high-profile – of course they went out of their way. Try living in some crime-infested sink estate, where the threat of violent crime is a daily reality for most people, and see how visible/quick to respond the police are then.

                • James Lovelace

                  I was on a two-person demonstration in Whitehall, opposing 3000 anti-jewish muslims. I spent 5 hours debating them, and put up with numerous death threats. At one point some police were walking by, and I told them about the latest muslim death threat, from a group of men standing right in front ot me.

                  The muslims told me they had knives, and that when the police had gone by, they were going “to gut you like a fish”. So, I called the police over, and told them what they said. The police refused to search them, and told me to just go home and stop getting involved in politics.

                  That was going on in broad daylight, 500m from Parliament. Meanwhile Mary Beard gets a police car outside her house because of a tweet.

                  The elite are fucking clueless.

                • James Lovelace

                  “The police were very helpful as it happens.”

                  Yet the police ignore attacks on other people. When I was a victim of racist violence they took 3 days to come out and see me. They closed the case within 12 hours because I cannot tell them who the people are who did it. I can describe them, but only in terms which match 1000 men within 1 kilometer.

                  And even when someone like Tommy Robinson can give them the actual death threats to his wife and kids, along with the Twitter ID, the police do absolutely nothing.

                  How grand it is for you to be part of the elite who actually get police attention. The rest of us scum just have to lump it.

                • Eddie

                  Oh yes, our dodgy ‘politically correct’ police are keen to show how fluffy and cuddly they are these days, and are spending milllions or our money doing that instead of fighting crime.
                  Death threats? Plenty of people get them. I dare say Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage have a few, as do many other men who have a backbone – unlike you.
                  Nothing you say furthers the argument – you are the inflamer and you provoke all attacks against you, as you dammnn well know it too! You love playing the victim!

                • James Lovelace

                  “so far as I know (behind the anonymity of twitter) the vast majority were young white Britons (like those convicted of saying much the same, and worse, to Caroline Criado Perez).”

                  Islam corrupts. As a historian, you should know that (the first pogroms against jews on European soil occurred in Spain — done by muslims).

                  The legal and social position of gay people in Britain is now better than at any time in the last 300 years. Yet even gay people are now sending death threats to people like Melanie Phillips.

                  Where did those gay people, who never took to violence in Britain to get their way… where did they get the idea that murdering (or threatening to murder) those who criticised them was the right thing to do? Our culture is being corrupted by decades of tolerance of the threats from muslims.

                  If you were any kind of historian, you would be able to recognise this. Future historians certainly will only be looking to your writings on fin de siecle Europe to understand how it was that a supposedly “liberal” elite betrayed the society that gave them freedoms.

                • Eddie

                  Well, they would be, as 84% of Britons are white.
                  Try attacking Islam in the same way you attack Britain – and specifically England – eh? Then see how many whites threaten you. LMAO.

                • James Lovelace

                  The likes of Mary Beard attack the targets they think won’t hunt them down and decapitate them. Then they are shocked when they find out those targets have learned from our cultural enrichers, and instead of just taking it, they start to give it back in kind.

                  When I saw gay people issuing death threats, I knew the rot from cultural enrichment had gone deep in our country.

                • lojolondon

                  That is nonsense – how would you know who owns a Twitter account, Mary, or how to categorise them??

              • James Lovelace

                “Am I alone in thinking that threats of rape, decapitation, bombing etc are not ways to have a proper discussion of thinks that matter. I hope not.”

                When have you objected in the last 30 years to the muslims in Britain who have got away with threatening to kill anyone who got in their way?

                The leader of the EDL has had over 200 documented death threats on Twitter. The police were given the evidence, but not 1 of those muslims was arrested or charged.

                Only a hypocrite would bleat about the death threats others have got, then keep quiet about the 100s of death threats that other people get. The only action that Tommy Robinson got from the police was to have his dying mother hounded for mortgage fraud.

              • Fergus Pickering

                Indeed not. That would be behaving like a radical muslim, wouldn’t it?

            • Al West

              I think you should stop writing. The script you’re using is an immigrant – it originally comes from Egypt via the Levant and Greece, and came to this island with an Italian immigrant invasion! It would be endorsing immigration to continue using it.

              Oh, and you might want to stop drinking beer (only came to Britain about five thousand years ago, and the modern form, with hops, came with Flemish immigrants), eating anything with tropical ingredients (potatoes, for instance), speaking English (Indo-European languages come from what is now Russia/Ukraine, dontchaknow), or living with genetic material from outside these islands, as you certainly do.

              The UK is a nice place to live, and I wouldn’t want to see it ruined. But immigration – certainly immigration from eastern Europe – won’t ruin it, hasn’t ruined it, and in fact has mainly strengthened. The thing I’m scared of, when it comes to the potential ruin of the UK, is not idiotic views and opinions from outside coming in (e.g., fundamentalist religious views), but rather the small number of ignorant racists who are already here.

              • Eddie

                Idiot. The script I am using developed from Old English (650-1150 approx.) Middle English 1150-1450) and various forms of modern English since then. It is a Germanic language with French and Latinate additions, The British are genetically similar to other north Europeans. A little learning is a very dangerous thing, boy. Plus, your post it utterly irrelevant to the issue of mass immigration over the last 20 or so years (over half has been from outside the EU).

                Funny how you would call Indian culture indigenous and their food – when it contains potatoes, tomatoes, chilli – all taken to Asia by white men – and also you’d no doubt see tea as Indian, despite the British introducing the daily habit of tea-drinking in the country called India they created (after overthrowing Muslim despots).

                If you lost your job and home or had lower pay because of immigrants, your views wouldn’t be so twee and infantile. You have no empathy at all for those suffering because of immigration so long as you are alright.
                By the way, I am the son of an immigrant – so you can stuff your sanctimony in your smokeless cigarette and shove it up your pompous pooh pipe, eh?

                • Al West

                  How do you know that I would do that?

                  In fact, I wouldn’t say that Indian culture is any more indigenous than British culture, whatever that means. We’re all products of everywhere, and it is senseless and moronic to ignore that self-evident fact. Indian cuisine is as much a product of colonialism as British cuisine is; Indo-European languages are just as ‘foreign’ to India as they are to Britain; and so forth.

                  When it comes to public policy, we should focus on what produces the most happiness and the greatest health. We should not focus on demonstrable fictions, like national cultures and their potential destruction at the hands of immigrants.

                • Al West

                  Yes, British people are genetically similar to other northern Europeans, because people from northern Europe arrived only about 1500 years ago. They’re still immigrants and they still brought characteristically foreign things with them.

                  You have confused language and script. The script is Egyptian hieroglyphs transformed: first, into the proto-Sinaitic abjad, then a Phoenician abjad, then the Greek alphabet, then the Cumaean Greek alphabet which went to Italy to inspire the Etruscans to write in their alphabet, which spread to other Italic-speaking groups, including the Latins, who eventually took it to northern Europe with their empire. After several variations and changes in font, it became the variety of scripts you use everyday. It comes from Egypt.

                  And you’ve taken a short view of language. Look at the long view: English is an Indo-European language, and proto-Indo-European was almost certainly spoken north of the Black and Caspian Seas about 5200 years ago, associated with the Yamnaya archaeological culture. Its evolution in Britain was the result of thousands of years of developments across Eurasia, not an indigenous set of events that took place only here; and you’re clearly ignoring the massive influence of other languages on English. The verb ‘to be’ is half Old English and half Old Norse, and other Norse vocabulary includes ‘bag’, ‘egg’, and ‘sky’. Old French and Middle Dutch also had a large influence on the development of English vocabulary and orthography.

                  Of course, this isn’t irrelevant to the issue of more recent immigration. What it tells us is that all of the things we think of as familiar and comforting nowadays are just as much products of immigration, colonisation, and population movement as anything else, and that trying to uphold some primordial vision of British ethnicity is wrong and silly.

                • crosscop

                  What on earth has all that got to do with the fact that this country is being over-run by people from African and Asia and we are not allowed to even call them names, never mind pick up our battle axes as our ancestors did when invaders stepped ashore?

                  BTW – “UK is a nice place to live, and I wouldn’t want to see it ruined. But immigration – certainly immigration from eastern Europe – won’t ruin it, hasn’t ruined it, and in fact has mainly strengthened.”

                  Mainly strengthened? Have you been to Tower Hamlets? Blackburn? Bradford? How has the setting up of alien colonies in Britain strengthened it?

                • Al West

                  People from Africa and Asia is who you and I and all British people, in the long run. That’s why this is important. What’s the point in being against immigration because it might destroy ‘British culture’ if ‘British culture’ is itself a recent and not at all primordial concoction with origins on all the continents?

                • crosscop

                  Funny that when the white people went back to their ancestral African and Asian homelands they weren’t actually welcomed with open arms. In fact the Africans and Asians did everything they could to kick them out! Why do you expect the whites to behave differently when African and Asians come here?

                • Al West

                  I assume that was because British people wanted to politically dominate those people and force them to do things they didn’t want to do and things that weren’t in line with ethnical government or general human morality. I expect ‘whites’ (you bigot) to react differently because it’s a completely different situation: asylum seekers arriving in trucks from Iran to escape the secret police aren’t seeking to dominate Britain politically, and would rather have nice lives. If any invading army does come and does try to force British people into slavery and imposes a theocratic government on them, I’d be quite happy to resist, but since that isn’t happening, you don’t need to worry about it.

                • crosscop

                  The invading army is already here and it is receiving re-enforcements every day. When it is big enough, you will learn what it is like to be dominated.
                  Now, so far you have called me paranoid for objecting to my people becoming a minority in their own country and now you call me a bigot for the terrible crime of using the word “whites.” This is water off a duck’s back, of course – but I just wonder how long it will be before you pull out “racist” or “fascist” from your arsenal.
                  You remind me of the Bishop of Bradford. You know, the idiot who told his dwindling, out-numbered parishioners that becoming a minority was a “fantastic opportunity.”

                • Al West

                  My people are the sensible and interesting ones who don’t concern themselves with fictions like ‘my people’.

                  It is better to live in a society governed by human rights and freedom than a society governed by superstition or ethnonationalism, and quite frankly I see you and your sort as greater enemies to a good and open society than immigrants. It’s not so much that you people are stupid – perhaps you’re just ignorant – but rather that you’re so certain, and so fervent in following, ideas that are moronic, harmful, and demonstrably incorrect.

                • crosscop

                  Your immigrant dominated paradise will not be governed by “human rights and freedom.” It will be governed by Shariah Law.

                • Al West

                  Did I say that immigrants would dominate the UK? Of course not. But feel free to keep your fervid imagination going, dominated as it is by fantasies of Islamic domination that reality cannot remove.

                • James Lovelace

                  59% of Brits think that something amounting to civil war with muslims is “likely”.

                  http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/26/public-attitude-muslims-complex-positive

                • Al West

                  Then 59% of Britons are witless cretins.

                • James Lovelace

                  And another dictator shows his colours.

                • Al West

                  Not a dictator; just a realist. And this clearly isn’t an issue of democracy, is it? It’s not that we need a majority or super-majority of Britons to agree that we should have a civil war.

                  I’m happy to bow to democracy, although of course the reason we have legal precedent and constitutional documents is precisely so as to avoid the evils of the tyranny of a witless majority.

                • James Lovelace

                  “It’s not that we need a majority or super-majority of Britons to agree that we should have a civil war.”

                  The civil war will start with far less than 80% of the population wanting it. I don’t think that more than 3% of people want it. The 59% who think it “likely” are describing not prescribing.

                • Al West

                  Given that the number of Muslims in the UK is tiny, and given that there are vastly more atheists than there are Muslims, I hardly think it would be a civil war. It sounds more like a pogrom, and that is precisely why you lot are such a threat to an open society. Just stop believing stupid things and you won’t feel so troubled and anxious about the future.

                • James Lovelace

                  Castro conducted the Cuban revolution with about 100 men. I would estimate that 1 devout suicide bomber counts for 10 squeamish atheists.

                  “Just stop believing stupid things and you won’t feel so troubled and anxious about the future.”

                  The difference between you and me is that I have actually studied islam extensively, and I credit muslims with being serious about what they believe.

                  You, on the other hand, refuse to actually pay any attention to what they are saying. No doubt the last 30 years of my life has been spend in far closer proximity to muslims than has the last 30 years of your life. I talk to muslims on a daily basis, and I know what is in their scripture and history.

                • Al West

                  Britain has one of the best-funded militaries on the planet, an excellent police service, and a population definitely not in favour of Islamism.

                  I’m sure Muslims are serious. But Castro had widespread support among the people and was fighting a corrupt regime with little money and only support from the outside. It isn’t exactly the same scenario, is it? Even if 1 suicide bomber counted for 10 atheists, you would still need several hundred thousand suicide bombers (good luck with that) to make a difference.

                  Please, take a look at the real demography of the UK. Islam is a tiny minority interest.

                • James Lovelace

                  “Britain has one of the best-funded militaries on the planet, an excellent police service,”

                  An excellent police service, who failed to know anything about the 7/7 attack. An excellent police force who failed to know anything about the 21/7 attack. An excellent police force who failed to know anything about the group of muslims who went to bomb an EDL demo.

                  The next 7/7 will be a massive turning point in Britain.

                • Al West

                  Bit of a wimp, are you? Crazy people will always threaten open societies by undermining the belief that they are good and just. They aren’t a good reason for throwing out immigrants or scrapping democratic institutions or the concept of human rights. Only a wimp would suggest such a thing to prevent something as miniscule as 7/7. For decades, the UK endured attacks by the IRA. The IRA failed. So has Islamism. You do not need to worry about it.

                • James Lovelace

                  “They aren’t a good reason for throwing out immigrants or scrapping democratic institutions or the concept of human rights.”

                  I never said that is what I want to do. That’s your fantasy of what you think is the only possible alternative to your viewpoint. Like I said, you are a dictator. You believe in democracy provided the majority agree with you.

                  Please show me where the IRA managed to conduct an attack like 7/7. 60 people were killed by the muslim suicide bombers on that day. Please show me where the IRA used suicide bombers.

                  Also, the IRA had very limited objectives. The objective of muslims is to see all non-muslims subjugated. That is what the koran commands.

                • James Lovelace

                  “Just stop believing stupid things and you won’t feel so troubled and anxious about the future.”

                  Towards the end of 2010, I was in conversation with police agents who monitor “political extremists” in Britain. I told them that I could see that shortly non-muslims would start to engage in terrorist activity to combat islamisation. These experts laughed at me.

                  Within 9 months, Breivik had launched his attack in Norway. Two years later, a Ukrainian had done the same thing in the West Midlands.

                • Al West

                  So, your point is that irrational bigots commit terrorist acts in order to stop Islam? Which they are convinced is so bad because they’re irrational bigots who don’t really know what’s going on?

                  Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

                • James Lovelace

                  There are 332 irrational bigots in Britain who were convicted of terrorism in Britain. Only the racist in you stops you from seeing that.

                  https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/international-terrorism/international-terrorist-plots/arrests-and-convictions.html

                  As Mary Beard is discovering, when even gay people start going round issuing death threats, cultural enrichment means more than just being able to recognise different sects of islam and different kinds of muslima headdress.

                  Non-muslims in the west will start to copy muslims. Our governments have shown after 40 years of appeasing islamic violence and terrorism, that such barbarity works.

                • Al West

                  ” Our governments have shown after 40 years of appeasing islamic violence and terrorism, that such barbarity works.”

                  Nonsense. Centuries of market economies regulated by strong democratic government have shown that *that* works. And what it gives us is stability, security, and the chance to explore the universe. Islamism is a failure and what it promises to give is horrid, so the only people who would emulate it are, in a fundamental sense, irrational.

                • James Lovelace

                  “Islamism is a failure”

                  Please explain the difference between islamism and islam. Islamists are doing what muslims were doing for the best part of 1300 years.

                  There is no difference beween an islamist terrorist and Mohammed, the founder of islam. It is only because of the lies and deceptions by academics and journalists that you do not understand this.

                • Al West

                  Whether you are correct on this semantic point or not, the basic point stands: the approach taken by Muslims/Islamists is not a successful one and it isn’t one that anyone need emulate unless they want to experience more and greater pain, misery, and death.

                • James Lovelace

                  “the approach taken by Muslims/Islamists is not a successful one ”

                  Again, this shows your racist, eurocentric arrogance. Many of the lands which are now “muslim” were christian, hindu, buddhist. Islam succeeded in either wiping out the followers of those other religions, or in turning them into 3rd class citizens in their own lands.

                  The islamic empire has outlived the Roman empire, the British empire, the Third Reich, the USSR.

                  Pakistani muslims born in Bradford regard muslims in Palestine and muslims in Sudan as their “brothers”, and are willing to die for those “brothers”.

                  And in your tepid, squeamish, deluded, racist eurocentrism, you say that islam/islamism has failed.

                • Al West

                  I’m not a Eurocentrist, and I can tell that you do not understand Islam at all. It isn’t an empire, anymore than Christianity is. Christianity was the religion of late antiquity and it has survived into the present; by your standard, we’re still living in the late Roman empire. Unified Islam died when Mohammad did and Islam as a serious contender on the world stage died when European powers showed they could demolish Ottoman armies in the field. It’s not an empire, it’s not unified either politically or in ritual, and it isn’t homogeneous. It’s just a set of beliefs that vary a lot and cause irrational people to act in irrational ways. It’s an unsuccessful thing compared to regulated markets and democratic institutions. For Europe and America, Islam isn’t a serious political force and it’s not something to be overly concerned about.

                • James Lovelace

                  “It isn’t an empire, anymore than Christianity is”

                  You are so ignorant, you think that because two sets of beliefs both talk about god, they are commensurate in every other regard. I presume you cannot tell the difference between piss and milk – both are liquids.

                  “Unified Islam died when Mohammad did and Islam as a serious contender on the world stage died when European powers showed they could demolish Ottoman armies in the field.”

                  Mohammed’s death didn’t stop muslims from taking over all the land between Lisbon and Kabul, within 100 years of his death. It took the Spanish 700 years to oust those un-unified muslims. But carry on deluding yourself.

                  Those disunited muslims ALL believe ALL of the koran. Which tells them ALL to subjugate and/or kill non-muslims.

                  The Caliphate ceased to be in 1924. By 1928 the Muslim Brotherhood was still trying to bring it back. By 1956, even muslims who supported the Brotherhood thought it had been destroyed. The attempt to contain this dead Muslim Brotherhood is tearing apart Egypt.

                  20 of the major muslim organisations in Britain are working to restore the Caliphate.

                • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

                  Al West is clueless.
                  What his chronological age is I do not know, he is certainly mentally immature.

                  Personal abuse is not to be encouraged but West’;s comprehension of the difficulties facing the future of the UK is is non existent..

                  He experiences perfection when appraising himself and transfers that on to the world stage.

                  Islam has been at war with itself and everybody else since its inception.

                  Wake up West you silly boy.
                  In fact west appears to be a dhimmi hehehehe

                • Richard

                  ‘Given that the number of Muslims in the UK is tiny’. I thought it was about 2 million which is not tiny in my book.

                • James Lovelace

                  “It is better to live in a society governed by human rights and freedom”

                  Then you’d better realise that the entire muslim world puts sharia law above your johnny-come-lately concept of “human rights”.

                  Under sharia law non-muslims are 3rd class citizens, homosexuals are to be killed, and slavery is legal.

                • James Lovelace

                  There’s a bishop in Sweden who now greets her parishioners with “allahu akbar”. http://www.d-intl.com/2014/01/22/israeli-christians-change-middle-east-game/?lang=en

                  Christians in the Middle East are now saying that those who pass themselves off as christians in the west are fake.

                • Eddie

                  The British created India, gave far more then they took, stopped slavery and other vile habits, introduced law, education, modern human rights and values, as well as tea, potatoes, tomatoes, chillies (imagine Indian food without them now!)
                  But I think we all know your agenda – a typical pc teacher’s fantasy of how immigration always enriches us so let’s have more.
                  According to you, white = bad; black/brown = good.
                  Ergo, you have proven yourself a racist.

                • Al West

                  No. According to me, people are people, and being white or black or anything else doesn’t concern me, and nor should it concern anyone (unless they need to worry about vitamin D or sunburn). It’s a trivial and stupid thing to care about, and more than anything, I wish racists like you would find a fulfilling hobby instead of filling their heads with anti-human bullshit.

                • crosscop

                  ” being white or black or anything else doesn’t concern me, and nor should it concern anyone (unless they need to worry about vitamin D or sunburn). It’s a trivial and stupid thing to care about”

                  The NHS don’t seem to agree with you on that, Al. Perhaps you should get in touch with them and tell them where they got it wrong.

                  “Body tissues have racially specific characteristics, which means that transfusions and transplants are far more likely to be successful when the donor and recipient are of a similar ethnic background. If you’re black, your best tissue match will usually be black. If you’re Asian and need a transplant, you’ll probably need an Asian donor.”

                  http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Donation/Pages/Donationethnic.aspx

                • Dalek_1963

                  being white or black or anything else doesn’t concern me

                  Thanks for the heads up.

                  It means you’ll have nothing to say about a whites only immigration policy. Absolutely nothing. After all, as you say, race doesnt concern you. All white immigrants, all black, mixture, whatever. . . it doesnt matter, correct?

                • Al West

                  Why is it that racists are so determined to label as ‘racist’ people who don’t care about skin colour or arbitrary standards of human diversity? I’ll never understand that. It’s almost as if you’re endorsing the idea that your own beliefs are substandard, immoral, and idiotic. Which they are.

                • Eddie

                  ‘Yes, British people are genetically similar to other northern Europeans, because people from northern Europe arrived only about 1500 years ago.’
                  And that sentence shows you to be an ignoramus. It has been shown by genetic testing that those in Britain are descended from those who lived her 10,000 years ago; ditto for those in Germany no doubt (not the Turks, though).

                • Al West

                  I’m not ignorant. You don’t understand anything about population history in Europe, and you have no idea about language, genetics, or human history. You are the ignoramus.

                  Genetic studies show that most genetic material in Britain arrived long after the end of the Pleistocene, and has not been present here for 10,000 years. English genotypes show a very clear recent continental origin, associated with speakers of Germanic languages, and probably arriving c.500 CE and after. That some haplogroups are common in Europe is certainly true, but it’s trivial, and the mtDNA U1 in England, for instance, isn’t the same as the U1 that arrived with Mesolithic foragers, because it went through countless intermediaries on the continent first. The genetic continuity of British people is an illusion, one designed to foster an image of an unchanging primordial Britain that should resist change.

                • Eddie

                  Reading your idiot post, we can all see why British universities and our society too are in such trouble.

                  http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.php

                  What you say about Britain could apply to ANY other country in the world. If you want to argue that we all came from somewhere else too, then fine – but try telling Indians or Africans or Chinamen that. And by the way, European whites are by far the most tolerant when compared to those people.

                • Al West

                  Yes, it could apply almost anywhere, which is precisely why ethnonationalism is *always* wrong, and why this kind of absurd anti-immigration pablum based on primordial ethnicity is *always* so moronic. You don’t become less stupid merely because your stupid idea also applies to other stupid people in other places. Give it up; you are not ‘indigenous’ in any meaningful sense and your culture, and that of everybody around the world, is the result of millennia of borrowing and sharing between diverse populations.

                • Al West

                  And, by the way, I *do* tell it to Chinese people in particular, and anybody else who cares to make a big fuss about the brilliance of their ethnicity or the need to preserve it from foreign intrusion. You think England is targeted so specifically because you have a pathetic victim complex.

                • oddball1776

                  “so you can stuff your sanctimony in your smokeless cigarette and shove it up your pompous pooh pipe, eh?” ~ Eddie

                  Saved and stored for future usage.

                  Thanks mate!

              • roystonvasey

                You mean ignorant,anti-white racists?

              • JackyTreehorn

                What a pathetic post.

              • James Lovelace

                “The UK is a nice place to live, and I wouldn’t want to see it ruined”

                10,000 schoolgirls have been the victims of muslim grooming/raping gangs.
                332 muslims in prison convicted of terrorism.
                Gays driven out of east London over the last 20 years.
                People being prosecuted for “hate crime” if they use the wrong word.

                Mary Beard complaining about abuse, when other people have to live with years of death threats and the police doing nothing.

                I have numerous “liberal” friends who have left London because of the racist violence they have suffered from non-white people there.

          • lojolondon

            So it clearly is Mary Beard – she said ‘vagina’

      • Eddie

        Oh sod off you ugly old tedious troll!

        Is that your hobby now? Provoking people then playing the victim?

        All in between doing 8 hours’ work a week for a 6 figure salary… and doing what? Promoting a ‘politically correct’ view of history that focuses on women, ethnics, the ‘working class’ and is inherently anti-white men.

        Sounds like the BBC really – which is why so many mediocre women like you are now parachuted in to present TV history programmes which is why viewing figures are plummeting.

        Maybe, Beardy, if you lived in the real world, living in a London bedsit on minimum wage in an area dominated by blacks, you would change your stupid ideas pretty damnn quick, love.

        I am sure I could find many well-educated immigrants to do your job for a third of your massively over-inflated salary.

        • mary beard

          Blimey. Is “sod off you ugly old tedious troll” actually helping us have a discussion about this.
          I can assure you that I don not do 8 hours work a week for a six figure salary! And “Beardy”

          Should we be disagreeing not slanging?

          • crosscop

            Mary – I am with you on the needless and counter-productive insults but I am at a loss as to why you appear to be an example of someone who studies history but has learnt nothing from it. Indigenous peoples quite obviously do not benefit from being colonised and out-numbered in their own homelands. They become marginalised and dwindle away. Why do you think this will be any different for the British?

            • Al West

              ‘Indigenous people’! Christ on a bike. The genetic, linguistic, and cultural contribution of the indigenous people of Great Britain to life in the islands today is tiny – very little to be found in Britain today is ‘indigenous’ in any realistic sense. Being against immigration on the grounds that immigrants will somehow overwhelm and murder the supposedly indigenous inhabitants is an absurdity.

              • Eddie

                Actually, most white British people are descended from those who were here before the Romans.
                The ‘waves’ of immigration were nothing of the sort, The Normans were but 1% of the population; others much less. By contrast, we have had 4 million immigrants over the last 20 or so years; in the years 1945-1990ish, it was 2 million in total. Facts, my dear, facts.
                I know your brainwashing (i.e. schooling) taught you different, but DNA does not lie. Science is about facts, you see – not opinions masquerading as facts: that is history.

                • Al West

                  Actually, no. I’m afraid you’re wrong; recent genetic studies show that the modern population of Britain is composed of multiple layers of immigration and invasion, and most people in England – England certainly, Wales, Scotland, and NI less certainly – are not primarily descended from people who were here before the Romans (who, in any case, were certainly not indigenous).

                  There are plenty of studies to substantiate massive population overhauls at several points in British history and prehistory, primarily associated with:

                  a) the arrival of farmers between 4000-3000 BCE;
                  b) the arrival of Indo-European-speaking people, probably associated with the Bell Beaker archaeological culture, likely speaking Celtic (probably Goidelic, like Irish, rather than Brythonic, like Welsh);
                  c) the arrival of a different group of probably-Brythonic-speaking Celts in the Iron Age;
                  d) the eventual arrival, several times, of ‘the Romans’ – in reality, people from all over the Roman empire (there are plenty of eastern European genotypes to be found in British Roman-era graves);
                  e) the coming of the Anglo-Saxons, really a collection of different tribes from around the German-Danish border;
                  f) the waves of Norse settlement, which are genetically barely distinguisable from the Anglo-Saxons, but which can be clearly seen in historical documents, archaeology, and language.

                  Most English people have haplogroups associated with speakers of the Germanic languages, although this is strongest in East Anglia and other areas in eastern England. These people were, of course, immigrants.

                  You are correct that the Norman impact on British genetics was minimal. But if you think that overrides everything else, you’re mistaken, immigrant.

                • Eddie

                  Actually, no – you are just repeating opinion masquerading as fact again. Tests have shown that (as well as there being no real genetic difference between the Scots and English) a surprisingly large percentage of these populations is descended from those who lived in these islands 10,000 years ago or more. Until the 20th century, immigration was VERY small indeed.
                  You COULD argue that there is no such thing as indigenous. After all, all countries in the world are made up of the descendents of incomers if you go far enough back. But idiots like you always but always only apply that to England.
                  Why not same the same about Nigeria? Or China? Or Japan? Or India?
                  I think we now why, don’t we?

                • Al West

                  More importantly, perhaps, your language isn’t ‘indigenous’ in any real sense, and came very late on, in historical times. Your cultural practices are also astonishingly recent, including drinking beer, eating potatoes and turkeys, and abhorring violent religions. It’s not all about genetics – far from it.

                • Eddie

                  My language is as indigenous as any other in the world.
                  What about Pakistan? Only created in 1948 and with a modern language called Urdu – very recent actually. Therefore, Pakistan has no native culture. Agreed?
                  English is one of the oldest languages around actually. Plus, Britain has a more ancient language – Welsh.
                  Your argument that if the language someone speaks has not existed for 10 million years in their home town them all their arguments are invalid is utterly false and just goes to show 1) how desperate you are for find reasons for mass immigration; 2) how dumbed down our education system has become.

                • James Lovelace

                  But if a Sikh in Britain calls another Brit whose parents came from Pakistan “a paki”, that Sikh is hounded as “a racist”.

                  So, Pakistanis are a race after a mere 70 years of existence, but there’s not native British race, even when most of the population of Britain can trace their ancestry back centuries.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Why are you saying “Your cultural practices? Leaving aside your rather scornful summary of ‘our’ cultural practices, if you believe ‘abhorring violent religions’ is ‘astonishingly recent’ you have a very poor grasp of European history.

                • Al West

                  I’m saying ‘your cultural practices’ because I do lots of different things with my time and think of few of them as British. I cast my net wider than Britain when looking for food, language, past-times, sports, and everything else. The universe is big, and I don’t like to limit myself.

                  And I take a long view of human history; in terms of the longue duree, people in Britain have endorsed violent religion much longer than they have abhorred it. I live in Oxford; in the centre, on Broad Street, there’s a memorial to the men burned to death for espousing Protestantism. Violence used to be a part of daily life, even more so than in modern Saudi Arabia, and yet it is now entirely foreign to most of us in the UK. This is because societies change, and anyone who deliberately straitjackets themselves with an ethnonationalist identity has done so in defiance of this basic fact.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  That’s all fine. But I don’t consider my ‘ethnonationalist’ identity a ‘straitjacket’ and it has not inhibited me in my international pursuits and relationships. I have as many ‘foreign’ acquaintances and colleagues as English ones but I don’t need to shrug of my birthright to make those relationships mutually rewarding.

                  Societies change. Society in China has changed dramatically in the last 50 years but the people who live there are still Chinese and you would scorn their ‘ethnonationalist’ identity at your peril.

                  It seems that religious violence is making a comeback.

                • Al West

                  I scorn the Chinese ethnonationalist identity whenever I wish, and the difficulty of doing so – threats of violence are inevitable when you question cherished irrational ideas – doesn’t speak in favour of their truth.

                  If it were a simple case of you cherishing your identity and keeping it to yourself, that would be fine. But you impose your nonsense on others and would clearly want to vote in favour of measures that promote your irrational view. This means that you should be stopped and informed.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I don’t impose my ‘nonsense’ on anyone. I have no such power nor would I wish it. I merely observe and express a personal opinion which I still believe I am entitled to. But I do have an identity which I own and which I am also entitled to and which it is not for you to define for me or to judge.

                  If you were able to analyse your own assertions with the depth of critical judgement you seek to apply to others you might identify the essential hypocrisy in your position. The very fact that you should want my ‘view’ stopped and informed’ reveals that it is you who wishes to impose rather than I.

                  Voting in favour or against measures is part of our democracy. Only a fascist would seek to coerce an outcome that conforms to his view only. You want to stop people who disagree with you from voting on the basis that your view is rational and any other is ‘wrong’. Now who does that remind me of . . .

                • mary beard

                  I am afraid that this is not the case for England. We are massively mixed in origin. Slightly less so in other parts of the UK, but still very mixed.

                • crosscop

                  But Mary – this “massive mix” was of neighbouring ethnic groups and even then all of them warred for centuries before integrating. Why should anyone expect the present ( entirely avoidable) colonisation to be any different and any less bloody?

                • Al West

                  Nonsense. You don’t know your history. Not neighbouring ethnic groups; not always war; present is different because of the enormous changes wrought by industrialisation, modern banking, colonialism, etc…

                • mary beard

                  Yes and no. Some was ‘invasion’ etc. But the more we know of pre-modern times the more population mobility there seems to have been.

                • crosscop

                  People always have and always will fight over territory. Population mobility is just another term for invasion and colonisation. How are the Tibetans enjoying the “population mobility” of the Han Chinese?
                  Seriously, Mary – do you think this is going to end well? That there will be no more massacres? That there will be no more Lee Rigbys? Really?

                • mary beard

                  Some mobility is another term for invasion, some isnt. What I really fear is that the kind of “debate” on this site and others is (to say the least) not contributing to a happy ending.

                • crosscop

                  Sorry, Mary – but the happy ending is not on the cards. It never was. You cannot expect ancient nations to just meekly accept that they are being colonised by alien peoples from other continents – and that goes for the Tibetans as well as the British, French, Dutch etc. At some point, even when they know it is hopeless, they eventually will fight back. I can’t think of one example where there has been no resistance by a native population to alien colonisation. Can you?

                • mary beard

                  There is a difference between migration and colonisation. It is very hard to sustain an argument that we are being “colonised” by (eg) Poles in anything like the same way that we “colonised ” parts of Africa.

                • crosscop

                  When a group of people enter the territory of another group of people and set up a distinct and separate area for themselves where their customs, language and religious traditions are dominant – that is a colony. It was a colony in the time of Classical Greece and it is a colony today.

                • Eddie

                  Not at all! Opinion masquerading as fact again!
                  Culture and knowledge needs very few people to actually travel – just one or two.
                  Tell us then, what proportion of the British population were the Normans? No more than 1%. The French Hugenots? A tiny number in thousands. Immigration of previous centuries is always massively overplayed by those like you – in order to justify modern mass immigration. Spurious and specious.

                • Eddie

                  Did I claim it was a ‘case for England’ (whatever that is)? NO.
                  England is NO more massively mixed than Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Germany, Nigeria, Kenya, Pakistan, China etc. Yet lefties like you always bleat on and on and on about how there is NO such thing as British/English genetic make-up or heritage – when DNA tests show clearly that there is.
                  And why not tell the Scottish that their national identity is all fake? That they are just made up of immigrants so have no native culture. Oh no, it is always and only the English and England you want to trash and insult.
                  Why do you do this? Here’s how it goes:
                  England has no culture and no indigenous population.
                  The only culture and population has come with immigrants.
                  Ergo let’s have more and more and more immigration and promote everyone else’s culture as being ours (Multiculti ideology).
                  Relativism is a terrible thing.

                • mary beard

                  perhaps you could give us a link to the dna data you are referring to

                • Al West

                  I’m happy to tell the Scottish that their culture is a recent concoction, and I’m quite happy to do the same for any group of people. Nobody is preserving a pristine tradition going back to time immemorial, and it has nothing to do with hating England or hating white people or whatever other stupid strawman you wish to erect.

                  There is an English genetic inheritance, you’re quite right. And most of it came quite recently. With immigrants.

                  It is good to take joy in what humans produce, wherever it comes from. It isn’t that diversity always brings good things; it’s just that it very often brings new things, and those new things inspire yet newer things. It’s always been a great mix. Battered fish came from pre-Islamic Persia via Sephardic Jews; chips came from the Low Countries, with potatoes coming from the Andes. Without all of this swirling human cultural influence over thousands of years, we’d have nothing nice to do, eat, say, read, or plant in our gardens. It’s all a mix, all of it, all the time.

                • Eddie

                  The English genetic inheritance is not recent at all, It has been here many thousands of years.

                  http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.php

                  And why is it always England whose history and culture you focus on and claim does not exist, because it all came from immigrants? Why not Scotland’s? Or France’s? Or Italy’s? Not to mention African and Asian states.

                  When I visit France and Italy, I don’t hear them slagging off their country and culture constantly, telling the French and Italians that they have no culture because it was all brought to them by immigrants. And yet, practically everything about those countries and all countries now has been imported from Victorian England – including Christmas celebrations, technology and the rule of law.

                  All states see the benefit of an origin myth as did Rome – because it creates social cohesion and harmony. The multiculturalists are quite happy to trash that and start riots – but only in England eh?

              • crosscop

                Oppenheimer. Sykes. Read what they have to say.
                BTW – Tell the families of Lee Rigby, Kriss Donald, Charlene Downes, Keith Blakelock, Stephen Oake etc etc etc etc etc that it is absurd that immigrants (who will outnumber us within the next 50 years) will somehow overwhelm and murder the indigenous inhabitants. How did it work out for the Copts?

                • Al West

                  Some people have been murdered by people in pursuit of a religious ideology, and you claim this as evidence that British people will be overrun as the Copts were?

                  Have a sense of proportion.

                  As for Oppenheimer, he’s a kook. I’ve met him a couple of times, not for long, and I appreciate his support for Southeast Asian studies, but he holds distinctly fringey beliefs about genetics, language, and migration in prehistory. Much better to read Jean Manco, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, even Peter Bellwood. The evidence is very clear; most of what you are, speak, and do has a non-British ultimate origin.

                • crosscop

                  “Some people have been murdered by people in pursuit of a religious ideology, and you claim this as evidence that British people will be overrun as the Copts were?”

                  The British people are being over-run – as the link below shows – and there will inevitably be more and more murders, rapes and terror attacks as their numbers dwindle away. Oh, and Keith Blakelock and many many more were not killed by people in pursuit of a religious ideology. They were killed because they were white. Do you really think this is going to end well?

                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8142176/White-Britons-to-become-minority-by-2066.html

                • Al West

                  Yes, I think it’s going to end well. Almost everybody nowadays agrees with some basic tenets of behaviour, including basic principles of human rights, legitimate authority, and democratic government. Those who don’t are in a tiny minority, and include the strange bedfellows of angry autochthonous racists and angry anti-human Islamists. As long as we can agree in general terms on what is moral and what is legal, and as long as the rule of law is maintained, and as long as learning is valued for its own sake, I don’t care what colour skin people have or from which ethnic origin they ultimate derive. What matters is that the world is a happy and interesting place in which to live. Ethnicity is important only to those with empty, boring lives who feel the need to attach themselves to a fiction that seems greater than they are as an individual.

                  Your entire comment is hyperbole. British people are not threatened. Britain is still 90% ‘white’ (whatever that means) and it still has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. None of that is threatened by immigration. I can only assume you have a terrified, paranoid, unhappy existence believing in your nonsense.

                • crosscop

                  “Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that if immigration remains at a long-term rate of around 180,000 a year the proportion of the white British-born population will fall from 80 per cent to 59 per cent by 2051.”
                  So you dismiss this as hyperbole? The UK is not 90% white, by the way. The 2011 Census showed 86% – and that, of course included non-British whites – and that was 3 years ago. We’ve had half a million pouring in every year since that census.
                  One day you are going to have to take off the rose-tinted glasses Aren’t you in the least bothered by the fact that the British are now a minority in their own capital city?

                • Al West

                  I’m not in the least bothered by that, no. As long as there is rule of law and a high standard of living, and as long as learning is still respected and encouraged, I don’t really care who lives here. And neither should anyone. It’s not vital to me that everyone eat fish and chips with gusto or watch ‘Zulu’. I wish everyone could get beyond arbitrary and stupid markers of identity and focus on what is really important: living a good life and exploring the universe.

                • crosscop

                  Which rule of law? Ours or Sharia? It will be Sharia when we are outnumbered, you know. Doesn’t the prospect of that bother you?
                  Living a good life according to Islam does not appeal to me.

                • Al West

                  I agree: Shariah law doesn’t appeal (there are lots of variants, but none of them are really all that moral, as far as I can tell). And I certainly don’t want there to be lots of religious people in Britain, of any stripe; it’s weird to be religious in the 21st century. But since Shariah law isn’t being imposed on non-Muslims and since most immigrants aren’t actually Muslims, I’m not exactly worried about it.

                  Rule of law is rule of law; it means that justice and morality go hand-in-hand to produce judgements that are in the human best interest.

                • crosscop

                  Shariah is not in the best interests of humans. It is in the best interests of Allah – and it is being imposed on non-Muslims. We are all, for example, eating halal slaughtered meat. We are barred from “blaspheming” against Islam and increasingly, they are pushing to see just how far they can get. Witness the “Muslim Patrols” in Tower Hamlets, for instance.

                  You call me paranoid yet you appear to be one of those seemingly intelligent people who was born with no common sense. It is obvious that there will be blood. My bet is that France will go first. There have already been calls for the army to move in to Marseilles because the police cannot cope with the heavily armed North African gangs.

                  http://www.france24.com/en/20120831-call-send-army-violent-marseille-inconceivable-jean-claude%20gaudin-marzouki/
                  Keep on hiding your head in the sand if it makes you feel better.

                • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

                  Not really caring whether a nation is culturally, racially or religiously homogenous or not shows you to be a naive trendy type in complete denial about the propensity for violence of humans and no sense of history which clearly reveals that tendency.

                  Lets look at India to see what I mean.
                  A cess pit compared with the UK with a longer history of diversity and where tribal elders apparently sanction gang rape.

                • Al West

                  India doesn’t work very well because it has no tax base. It’s perfectly possible for a society to function well if it has a functioning government and plenty of money, as Britain does.

                • Penny

                  The markers of identity you mention are surely the theme of a multicultural society, Al? Identity politics exist.

                  It isn’t important to most that different cuisines or entertainments are evident in our society. I think the issues go some way beyond the superficial.

                • Trofim

                  My observations all indicate that there is an inverse correlation between Muslims as a proportion of the population, and general freedom. In other words, more Islam clearly means less freedom. Take a look at Muslim majority countries. Besides which, Muslims have carry enormous clout in contemporary western societies, out of all proportion to their numbers. Even in low numbers, if the non-Muslim population is cowardly, frightened, gullible, or inert enough, Muslims are able to be extraordinarily influential. The reality is, our elites do know that Islam is a malignant force, but they do nothing, because there is nothing to be done which is acceptable in polite society. It’s too late. The job is done. Look at the Maajid Nawaz affair now. Sums it all up in a nutshell.

                • James Lovelace

                  “Almost everybody nowadays agrees with some basic tenets of behaviour, including basic principles of human rights, legitimate authority, and democratic government. ”

                  99.5% of British muslims are openly anti-gay. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

                  Somewhere between 60% and 70% of British muslims want homosexuality made illegal and gay people “punished”.

                  Clearly 99.5% of British muslims do not share your fantasy of “basic principles of human rights”.

                  If 60% of Brits wanted to make islam illegal you’d be up in arms. But you don’t care if they are going to try to wipe out homosexuals.

                • James Lovelace

                  “British people are not threatened.”

                  In the last 13 years, 332 people in Britain have been convicted of terrorism. All of them are muslims. If the 95% who were not muslims saw murdering the enemy as the way forward, there would be 7,000 “islamophobes” in prison.

                  Sooner or later, the people of Britain are going to decide that they will start to use terrorism too. It worked for muslims — they have the Deputy Prime Minister covering for them when 2 muslims decapitated a soldier.

                  There’s that decapitation again. Where did Mary Beard’s stalkers get that idea from??

              • Colonel Mustard

                You don’t own my indigenous English ethnicity. I do. It is not yours to deny or belittle.

                • Al West

                  I don’t own it, but I do have the capability to demolish its foundations. It’s a pathetic, moronic set of beliefs, and you only mark yourself out as stupid for endorsing them. They make you nothing more than a baying dog with a head full of mind-rabies. You are not indigenous and you do not have a linguistic, genetic, or cultural ancestry that traces back in any realistic sense to these islands. You are a human being and your ancestry is everywhere, as are your relatives – your cousins on other islands and other continents.

                  You’re human. You aren’t a dog. You don’t need to believe in lies and myths to be happy.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I can believe what I want to believe with or without your abuse. The more you try to ‘demolish its foundations’ the more you will create resentment and hatred, as every single other attempt to stamp out owned national, cultural and ethnic identity has discovered.

                  You might be an idealist, globalist, humanist sans frontieres or whatever you wish to call yourself and you are entitled to that identity but you do not own the identity of others. Neither to ‘demolish’ nor to scorn.

                  So, let me affirm.

                  1. I am indigenous to England.

                  2, My language is English, recognised as such internationally.

                  3. My genetic identity is traceable in England.

                  4. My cultural ancestry is rooted in England.

                  But above all this detail I was born English, absorbed the history, heritage and culture of my English family and am happy with that identity. It is not for you to deny it.

                • Al West

                  It *is* for me to deny it, given that you make it public and would clearly align yourself politically based upon it. If a person sticks their head above the parapet and says that they’re a creationist, they should anticipate rational-minded folk to shoot down their silly view. You should anticipate likewise.

                  Your genetic identity is traceable in Eurasia and Africa, not just England. Your ‘cultural ancestry’ – a term that doesn’t mean very much – is rooted everywhere, unless you’ve decided to not eat potatoes, turkey, wheat, barley, rice, chicken, pork, or any other form of domesticated fruit, cattle, vegetable, grain, or pulse. None of them come from England, of course. Your language comes ultimately from the Eurasian steppes, your clothes come from China and India… Your culture, as you believe it to exist, is a relatively recent concoction, and one as ephemeral as a human thought.

                  Europeans are indigenous to Australia, by your argument. Many of them were born there and they’ve been there for some time. They have genes that show founder effects from the earliest European settlers. They are also internationally recognised for speaking a certain form of speech normally called Australian English. By your standard, they’re indigenous. Of course, they’ve only been there for a couple of hundred years at maximum, but antecedents of English have only been in England for a few hundred years longer than that…

                • Colonel Mustard

                  No, it is not for you to deny it because you don’t own it. I do. You can characterise and scorn it all you want. But you simply do not own my English identity and I am free to express it however I want to.

                  My cultural ancestry means a lot to me and it is rooted in far more than what I eat or wear – which suggests your own life values might be somewhat shallow and short term.

                  I don’t understand what you mean about aligning myself politically unless you are attributing a political agenda to your own position. We might be getting to the nub of it bearing in mind your other comments.

                  The comparison to Australia doesn’t bear much scrutiny. I would not seek to impose on Australians their identity either.

            • mary beard

              Thanks. The problem is that there are many potential historical analogies, and it is hard to know which the most helpful one is. The issue with most colonisation is that it was sponsored by an imperial power, which is very different from modern migration. So we come to think of other forms and trends of migration in the past. Most modern work that I know suggests that there was much greater movement of populations that our romantic “indigenous” image assumes. But happy to disagree on this.

              • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

                Mary :Can you provide an example of stable societies that are racially or religiously diverse ?

                Even if you can it will be quite simple to provide numerous examples of those which are not stable…unless controlled by a ruthless dictator.
                Iraq springs to mind.
                A measure of stability was present until the peace loving Muslims were set free to murder one another.

                Yugoslavia/Tito is another example ..

                Do you subscribe to the myth of the social stability of the very diverse USA ?
                The US is one of the most violent nations on Earth; much of the violence due to ethnic DIFFERENCE !

                • Al West

                  Lots of countries are stable and diverse, and if they aren’t, it’s because of foolish, backward people like you messing things up and not being content to live a happy life surrounded by good things.

                • Trofim

                  “Lots of countries are stable and diverse, and if they aren’t, it’s because of foolish, backward people like you”

                  No, it’s because they pay a price in terms of social cohesion and lots more. In India you don’t discuss or make jokes about religion – it’s like a touchpaper. In Singapore you’ll be arrested straightaway if you should make even the slightest inference that one culture is in any way superior to another. It makes life much more complicated. In the UK we’ve already learned that you don’t make jokes about Islam. That’s a given. If you have “English” guests to your house, you provide any food, and perhaps a little something for veggies. If you have Muslims and Hindus, it makes catering much more complicated. By definition, the more different communities are involved, so are multiplied the taboos, the uncertainties, the discomfort at having to second guess or work out what different rules there may be, about how you should behave in a certain situation or towards certain people. In a relatively monocultural society everyone knows what the rules are, and thus, though it might be less “vibrant” it is more comfortable and easy going. Obviously too, the less distant the co-existing cultures are, the easier it is for the participants to feel easy in their interactions.
                  Just think to yourself: I’m sure that you, like me, feel more comfortable in the company of some people in comparison with others. Same reality with cultures. Would you rather spend time in the company of friends, or people with whom you feel you don’t have much in common?

                • Al West

                  England is ‘socially cohesive’, if it even is, because we have police, good government, and very long-term stability provided by these. I don’t think there’s great love or brotherhood between strangers in the UK, but there is respect for the law and for morality, and that is sufficient. We don’t all need to know one another or love one another as kin in order to treat one another with respect and have functioning democratic institutions.

                  If anything, England, where people are generally socially awkward and hostile to interruption or intervention by other strangers, is an excellent case study for the proposal that social cohesion, in the ethnonationalist model, is probably a hindrance to the good life.

                • crosscop

                  In the 60s the Labour government scrapped the Riot Act, claiming it was no longer needed as we didn’t have riots any more.
                  Since then we have had riots and looting in virtually every city in England that has a sizable 3rd World immigrant population. The communities that carried out these riots and looting sprees have no respect for our law or morality. Robbing and stripping naked white victims ( as happened in 2011) is not a sign that these communities have any respect for their host nation.
                  You really do live in a dream world, Al. One day you will have to wake up.

                • Al West

                  Most of the looters and rioters were not from ethnic minorities – you have to realise that. And the reason the riots happened in cities with large minority populations is simple: all large cities have large minority populations because they’re big cities, and because they’re big cities, they have more people to riot and more shops to loot. Hardly rocket science.

                  And actually, some of the only people who died in the 2011 riots died outside a mosque when someone drove into them.

                • crosscop

                  “Most of the looters and rioters were not from ethnic minorities” says Al.

                  “in the Guardian/LSE study, though a slightly larger proportion were from an ethnic minority (50% black, 5% Asian) or of mixed race (18%)…” says the Guardian.

                  http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/05/who-were-the-rioters

                • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

                  Do you mean the rioters in St Pauls (Bristol) Toxteth Handsworth Brixton were NOT ethnic minority.

                  If not which riots do you have in mind ?

                  In Tottenham in 2011 had the police have intervened all boots flying as was clearly required and stopped the rioting in its tracks you , the BBC and the Guardianistas in general would have had a field telling us ‘whites’ how nasty we really are.

                • mary beard

                  The city of Rome was pretty stable for centuries and hugely diverse, religiously and culturally.

                • Eddie

                  Nope. The reason why it was stable for centuries was because it was NOT multicultural in its ideology. Its emphasis with unity, NOT diversity! Tsss!

                  WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS. That later maxim sums it up perfectly – but say that as a teacher these days and the pc gestapo will get you suspended for being a racist!

                  Rome was as pro-integration and anti-multiculturalism as it is far to go. It was run by a sort of Latin UKIP mindset, actually.

                • crosscop

                  Was there a time in the history of Rome when the population was not primarily made up of people of Latin stock?

                • mary beard

                  Certainly. This partly a consequence of Romans freeing so many slaves (and giving them citizenship). Interestingly the foundation myths of the city stress migration (Aeneas is a refugee; Romulus gets his first citizens by offering asylum to runaways etc)

                • crosscop

                  Can you point me to any DNA evidence that backs up your claim? I’m not disputing what you say but I’d like to see proof.

                • mary beard

                  I’m really talking about what I have heard in lectures (as archaeology is now very interested in ways of exploiting dna to plot population shifts). So I fear I dont have more than that. I will watch out though and see if I can find a link.

                • crosscop

                  I’ve had a quick look on the internet and all I can come up with is a study of skeletons which indicated that a third originated elsewhere – and that included neighbouring parts of Italy.

                  http://www.academia.edu/2139725/Bioarchaeology_in_the_Roman_Empire

                • mary beard

                  kristina is very good and that is a not insignificant claim; the material i have heard in lectures relates more significantly to the uk

                • crosscop

                  I was talking about Rome. I would like to know if Italians were ever outnumbered in Rome’s population as Brits are now outnumbered in London. I would also be interested to know if you know of any nation on this planet throughout history in which the native people have become a minority in their own capital city without the leaders of that nation lifting a finger to prevent it.

                • Eddie

                  Indeed, white-skinned British slaves included. And they ALL rejected the segregation of multi-culturalism to fully integrate into Roman society and leave their backwards traditions behind. A shame many Muslims in the UK now haven’t done the same – but then, with the whole of the media and academic and schools encouraging them not to integrate in our mess of a multicultural society, it’s not all their fault, is it?
                  Now, Rome did have blacks but very few. If blacks had been a sizeable number, wouldn’t the average Roman of today look more like Lenny Henry than Lisa Minelli then eh?

                • mary beard

                  be careful here: a freed Greek slave in Rome could not be said to have come from a more ‘backward’ culture. There were areas of the ancient city known to be migrant areas (such as Trastevere/ trans Tiberim).

                • Eddie

                  I find it utterly hilarious that you always write as though you are marking an essay!
                  No, MB, I shall not ‘be careful’!
                  I shall state again that those from outside Rome were all seen as Barbarians, and the Romans were aping the Greeks there. The Romans admired Greek art and culture – so I shall accept that exception,
                  But ALL the other slaves were seen as being from a backward culture – those from Germania, Britain, Africa etc. The Romans saw these ‘races’ as inferior – and thus their worldview was racist. No relativists they!

                • mary beard

                  I’m afraid it is all much more complicated than that; E. Dench’s book, Romulus’Asylum is good on precisey these questions.

                • Eddie

                  I’m afraid you are wrong. Like a typical academic you think that because you have read more history books than me or most, that your opinions are right. But they are not. Other academics would back me up totally.
                  And history is tosh anyway – it is ALL opinion masquerading as fact. You have your opinion, (in your case pc and gyne-centric) and then find facts to back your argument. A good reason not to study history, I think. Best just stick to the dates and traditional lessons at school rather than wishy-washy pc waffling.
                  In general, those of Rome considered those who were not Roman – thos to the north in Germania, and all others (except perhaps the Greeks) as inferior and backwards. In this, they aped the Greeks. The ‘other’ could not speak their language and just went bahbahbah – which is where our word barbarian comes from. Also, those outside had beards.
                  Anyone could BECOME Roman though – if they fully integrated into Roman society, which was most certainly NOT in any way an example of the segregation of multiculturalism; in fact it was ANTI-multiculturalism – all had to integrate into one culture, the Roman one.

                • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

                  You mean being run by mad dog emperors, an autocratic senate and tolerating slavery .

                  That was my earlier point: diversity is only stable under an authoritarian regime.
                  Unless you believe Rome was a democracy ?
                  In that case so was 19th century UK..

                  Did not the Romans persecute Christians because they, Christians, would not pay due obeiscence to pagan Gods.
                  How tolerant is that ?

                  Islamic controlled societies may include diversity…with no political rights for non Muslims.

                • mary beard

                  you can push that attitude back into the roman republic which was a democracy, of sorts. no one is saying rome was ‘tolerant’ in a modern sense, but by and large (christianity and judaism apart) there was no objection to other religious and cultural traditions

                • oddball1776

                  Last comment from me. Totally cool that you have come here to talk Mary, and 10/10 for bravery.

                  I am not sure accommodation can be reached – believe me many lefties have tried.

                  Where we go from here, God alone knows.

                  I withdraw now, off to wander this paradise, this hallowed land, this Utopia (hopefully not to get shot, stabbed or my head chopped off at the side of the street).

                  Adieu!

                • mary beard

                  Thank you for saying. I am off to do some writimg tonight, but may look back in,

                • oddball1776

                  Good night.

              • James Lovelace

                “The issue with most colonisation is that it was sponsored by an imperial power, which is very different from modern migration.”

                Modern migration of muslims into the west is sponsored by an imperial power: islam.

                But of course, only the empires of white christians are bad. The fascist grandfather of Tariq Ramadan insisted that Spain, Palestine, and Sicily were to be re-conquered by islam. And the Left in Britain are doing their utmost to help the islamic empire to regain its “lost” territory.

          • Eddie

            Hang on…YOU replied to a post I put on here. I DID NOT ask you to or want you to.
            Ergo, you are the troll and my own little cyber-stalker it seems. Maybe I can call the plods eh? Waste yet more tax-payers money?
            Your reply proved my point: you are utterly sanctimonious and out of touch. Your version of history is ‘politically correct’ and fashionable – and adored by the gyne-centric BBC. However, outside that bubble and that of academia, I think you’ll find popular opinion dislikes you and your silly opinions on immigration.
            Learn some empathy, woman! how would you like to be in a low-paid job living in a rented slum only to find your wages are falling, your rent is going up, and you may well lose your job to a cheaper immigrant!
            I think the salaries of all senior academics should be cut by 20-30% anyway, more outside the south-east of England. You really are a rum bunch of spoilt and silly people. Best to always ignore academics, I always feel – and I have two degrees from top universities too.

            • mary beard

              I thought that under the line comments could be a good forum for debate; pity it descends to abuse. What a wasted opportunity.

            • James Lovelace

              Whilst doing the 3rd year of my PhD I decided I was going to go and get a real job, rather than deal with the politically-correct, back-stabbing world of hypocrisy known as academia.

              I’ve never regretted that decision for a moment.

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            I haven’t got the faintest idea what Mary Beard has done or has suffered: i disagree fundamentally with what seems to be ,at the minimum, her complacency over mass immigration, I am very much closer to Eddie POV in that respect
            BUT
            I do think that the verbal abuse launched over the net is unacceptable and reveals what sewers many have between their ears.
            Their diatribes should be opposed by all fair minded people.

            When those perpetrating such abuse are seen it is quite clear what completely ineffective bottom of the hierarchy low lifes they are.

            • mary beard

              Thank you very much for saying that. If we cant disagree constructively on this one, then we are all lost. I would say that I dont think that my view amounts to complacency. I think we have all sorts of problems to deal with. But not all of those who differ from Eddie’s point of view do so because they are complacent!

              • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

                Mary:i have just watched your Q/time responses when Boston and it’s problems where being discussed.

                You quoted an official report the contents of which flew in the face of the actual experience of a local who outlined the many problems that have arisen in the area.due to mass immigration.

                I do realise you had committed yourself before you heard knowledgeable views to the contrary.
                Your subsequent response was complacent.

                i understand ery few like to admit they are wrong.

                btw when the seasonal work is complete what do you think Boston immigrants will do and how will they be supported

                • mary beard

                  But hang on, the report was written by locals! It was done by the local council. If I cam across as complacent I am extremely sorry, as no complacency was intended. Rachel Bull put her points very well, and politely — unlike such of lot of the commenter on this site, I am afraid.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You are a little naive if you think councils don’t have a political agenda! Not least when it comes to Boston of wishing to keep a lid on any potential unrest as feelings there are running high. In fact that understandable motive underpins much of the centralised propaganda that unlimited immigration is A Good Thing and should not worry us.

                • mary beard

                  of course there are agendas, but i do suggest you look at the report. it isnt a whitewash, far from it. but it does bust a few myths

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Actually I think there are myths on both ‘sides’ of the argument but the problem afflicting much of the debate is the extreme polarisation that seems to arise. So, with immigration it is Good or Bad and you must be in one camp or the other stridently defending or attacking rather than that classic equivocation of “It depends” . . .

                • mary beard

                  as many of these comments sadly reveal

            • Druth

              “Mary Beard has done or has suffered”.

              She has suffered nothing, she just being a professional victim. As you rightly indicate there is a lot of industrial strength stupidity on the Internet, and having demonstrated to all and sundry on QT how out of touch with reality Cambridge is, she has been subjected to some rough and tumble which she chooses not to ignore and now wants to usher in the police state.

          • Druth

            Another cucumber sandwich Mary?

            • mary beard

              I am not sure why asking for decent polite disagreement should be ridiculed. If that is a suggestion about staple diet in Cambridge, I can assure you that the reality is very different from the Cambridge myth

              • Druth

                You’re being ridiculed because you’re ridiculous. How many times do you actually need telling, you don’t live in the real world. And yet still you deign to descend from up on high and pontificate to us about the lives which we are being forced to lead.

                • James Lovelace

                  When the civil war comes, the people will know who the traitors were. The internet is providing us with plenty of documentation of their treachery. I’m fairly sure that Mary Beard would be in their list of traitors (most academics will be).

                  I am about the same age as Prof. Beard. We will probably both be dead before the civil war. But you never know.

              • Eddie

                Ridicule is nothing to be scared of, Mary.

                • mary beard

                  it doesnt tend to lead to particularly high quality argument though, does it?

                • Eddie

                  You are the one doing the arguing. You are the one who attacked me. Ergo you are the perpetrator and not the victim (which I see is your claim on Twitter – oh how you love to play the victim eh?)
                  My initial comment to you was ironic and referenced your well-known claim that trolls were out to get you (and you seem rather obsessed with your punani, I have to say, and seem to ignore the way men are always – yep always – in society, on TV shows, in advertising – portrayed as idiots and constantly too mocked for the alleged size of their members).

            • Eddie

              Yes indeed – the world seems suddenly full of weak wimpy weepy women having attacks of the vapours because someone challenged them, disagreed with them or subjected them to robust debate online.
              So either women are weak, or weaker than they used to be.
              Or, a great many women are spiteful and vindictive and are putting on a pity party victimhood act in order to manipulate debate and get revenge on men they hate.
              Such women would have been bursting into tears constantly in previous centuries – just take a look at the cartoons of Gillray and others to see how robust debate was back then; and yes, it included harsh words and what these days is called ‘abuse’.
              I find it fascinating how women seem to want to infantalise themselves thus instead of standing equal to men. It’s like they want inequality – to be treated less harshly than men.

        • Tom Miller

          I’m not on Twitter because I live in China and it’s a pain to use here, so perhaps I’m not used to this kind of invective. You probably have a valid point about the impact of immigration in poor communities–but you, “Eddie”, come across as almost unspeakably vile. Frankly I have no idea why Mary Beard would bother to argue with such a steaming pile of an individual.

          • Eddie

            Listen Windy – I posted a reasonable post here. Mary Beard then came along and replied to me in her usual pompous smug erroneous way; then she claims she is being abused when she attacked. No-one attacked her or asked her to post here.
            She reminds me of a nasty spiteful little girl provoking her brother to react to get him into trouble. Sad really.

      • James Lovelace

        “self-righteousness not top of the list”

        What? Is this the same Mary Beard who showed such compassion on the deaths of 1000s of innocent people on 9/11, by saying that “the United States had it coming”.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/html/NF2766774?thread=7862158
        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n19/nine-eleven-writers/11-september

        If that Mary Beard had been anything other than one of the Anointed Leftist Luvvies, she’d have been hounded out of her job.

        Some people in Britain expressed the same sentiment about the massacre on Uttoya Island of the children of the socialist leaders of Norway (massacred as they performed a training exercise on how to breach Israeli security). Those people who pointed out that if you teach kids to sympathise with terrorists, you shouldn’t complain when they are killed by a terrorist — those people were hounded by the media and the Left until they were sacked.

        Meanwhile the compassionate and not self-righteous Prof. Mary Beard is still gurning on prime time TV, and is indoctrinating students at places like Oxford.

        Universities like Oxford employ people like the grandson of the fascist founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. If the grandson of Hitler was employed at a British university, he would not be a media darling unless he denounced Nazism. But no such requirement is made of the grandson of Hasan Banna.

        After the beheading of Lee Rigby by two devout muslims, Nick Clegg made a speech surrounded by prominent muslims, and Nick Clegg lied about the contents of koran 5:32 (which authorises muslims to kill). None of those prominent muslims (including an imam) objected to Clegg distorting the koran; none of the scores of academics from islamic departments in the UK took to the media to object to this clear misrepresentation of what the koran said.

        That is the calibre of our academics. It’s no wonder that British universities are a hot-bad of islamic-nazism.

        • crosscop

          Well said. And don’t forget Surra 5:32 which authorises not only the killing but the crucifixion and mutilation of people like Lee Rigby. Strange that Clegg didn’t mention that one…

          • James Lovelace

            The koran that Clegg was reading from must have been so thoroughly edited, that it consisted of no more than 300 words.

            • crosscop

              What gets me is that nobody – not one politician, not one journalist – pulled Clegg up on that deliberate deception. They let him get clean away with it – as they also did when Mehdi Hasan used the very same deceit in the Daily Telegraph.

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10076096/The-Muslim-faith-does-not-turn-men-to-terror.html
              If Farage dared to bring this up ( and read out 5:33) he’d just about finish the Lib-Dems off.

              • James Lovelace

                “not one politician, not one journalist – pulled Clegg up on that deliberate deception.”

                They are in on the deception. As are the academics from the departments where they teach islam/middle eastern studies. As no doubt are the muslims, including the “moderates” and the “extremists”.

                It suits them all to lie to the non-muslim population about the threat from islam.

        • mary beard

          As I hope is clear, I did not say that those murdered on 9/11 deserved to die (of course they didnt). The point was (and it is one I still stick to) that Western foreign policy is not unconnected with the growth of terrorism in the West. As for death threats, they are wrong whenever and wherever used. Simple.

          • James Lovelace

            “Western foreign policy is not unconnected with the growth of terrorism in the West. ”

            And death threats on Twitter are not unconnected with importing millions of people who believe that they are going to heaven if they kill those who get in the way of islam.

            Simple.

          • James Lovelace

            “Western foreign policy is not unconnected with the growth of terrorism in the West”

            If you knew anything about the founder of islam, you would say he is indistinguishable from an islamist terrorist. He personally beheaded 100s of people (including boys who had any sign of pubic hair). All this is in muslims own holy books.

            But you blame “Western foreign policy” rather than give islam the credit it deserves. The most authoritative biography of Mohammed (written by a muslim) documents the 29 wars which Mohammed personally took part in. For 100s of years, the book was known by muslims as “The Book of Battles”.

            But you want to send American Foreign Policy back to 7th century Arabia in a time machine, to make it responsible for Mohammed being a terrorist.

          • Eddie

            There you go again.
            The Muslim Brotherhood and Jihadi-ism were well-developed and funded by Saudi oil money before the Iraq war.
            The assertion by you and the other usual suspects that Islamic terrorism is all our fault because of Western foreign policy shows a basic misunderstanding of Islam and the development of Islamism over the last 100 years.
            Very shallow and uninformed opinion actually, usually held by those in thrall to multiculturalism who pander to anyone with a dark skin and a religion. Many are anti-semites – or as the Islamists say, ant-Zionists.
            And even if our foreign policy does encourage terrorists – that is NO reason to change it. May I remind you that Britain intervened to protect Muslims in Bosnia, that most Muslims killed around the world (incl in Iraq and Afghanistan) are killed by other Muslims, and that if Muslims had their way here you and I would not be permitted to express an opinion on anything that went against the Koran, the only book allowed in radical Islam.
            If Muslims were white and British, you would call them bigots, facists, nazies, wife beaters, child abusers or worse, Daily Mail readers. That shows your stark hypocrisy on the issue. Indeed, it is a racist stance.

      • Makroon

        Given your oft-expressed left-wing views, I have no idea why this Eddie idiot has labelled you a “privileged wet Tory”.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Ah, good day Mary. I hope to see you here again. What dates do you not know? Perhaps I can help you.

    • JamesdelaMare

      And by what criteria does “Eddie” claim to know that many “patrician upper-middle class privileged wet Tories at Oxford” are not against immigration? How does “Eddie” even know what an “patrician upper-middle class Tory” is? How does he know how to define “patrician upper-middle class”?

      Despite its typical popularity among today’s Spectator commenters, it is a rubbishy, pretentious, speculative comment throughout, as are later comments posted by “Eddie” below. This article is primarily an attack on Bloom – but Bloom is entitled to his opinions of course, and his way of expressing them. The fact that they are ridiculed says more about the ever-developing intolerance and ignorance in today’s society than anything about Bloom himself who is typical of his post-war generation that was brought up with honesty, humour and bluntness as key qualities.

      Which is more than can be said about the commenter “Eddie” – who unlike Bloom and Mary Beard below, has not even the courage and honesty to write his comments in his own name. Merely under an anonymous codename!

      • Eddie

        Listen, granddad. This is a comments page – and it is thus quite acceptable for people to use aliases. That is not in the least dishonest or lacking in courage. If it is, then most who review or comment on the internet are dishonest cowards.
        There are such things as privacy and personal safety – for example, I would not state my opinions on Islam anywhere online if I had to use my real name, as it would be easy to trace my address from it.
        Celebrities who crave TV coverage use their real names – it all adds to book sales eh?

        • JamesdelaMare

          Use their real names for book sales? What kind of a world do you come from? Whatever qualities do you think you have to comment on “patrician upper-middle class privileged wet Tories at Oxford”? And who might those people be? Name them. Your comment and your excuse for making it (and your cowardly anonymity) is a disgusting squalid denial of everything that’s still supposed to be openly decent, educated, culturally literate and mature in this rotting country. Such an example to show us how far things have sunk in thirty years!

          • Eddie

            You really don’t understand this interweb thing, do yer?
            You do not have to post with a real name on online forums and message boards. It is not cowardly to avoid using one’s own name. That is your self-righteous prejudice speaking.
            Take a look at Amazon, or any newspaper forum. Very few real names – and those who DO post using their real names are craving fame or risibly attempting to claim moral superiority over others (mentioning no names, Jimmy…)

    • Eddie

      I see Mary Beard has now, after she replied to my post here (repeated below) and had debates with posters here, is claiming yet again that she has been abused! I quote from her Twitter-whinge:

      “Crikey. Decided to respond on stuff below the line of Speccie comment piece. And look at the cr*p that came back.”

      NO, Ms Beard – I posted on the Speccie and YOU came back at me with your sanctimony and smugly irritating platitudes.

      You were not attacked; you mounted an unprovoked attack.

      You are doing what is known as fishing for abuse, provoking others into telling you how wrong you are. Hardly a victim then – more a perpetrator?
      HERE IS MY POST – the one which caused you to post abuse aimed at me.

    • Makroon

      If you think the students voting against the motion were “privileged wet Tories” you are a clown. Another UKIP clown I presume.

    • Ed

      Appropriately enough for this article, this poster appears to have a rather large chip on his shoulder. The only person who needs to grow up is him. He should try reading over his comments again. How is he coming across? A tad bitter, peut-etre…?

      Mary Beard may have time to engage such idiots in debate. I don’t.

    • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

      A point worth pondering is that in extremis with a net immigration of zero the cultural/racial identity of the nation can still change.

      All white artisans Christians leave
      All blacks Hindus Muslims and Sikhs enter.

      Re the Hindus, has anyone ever had dealings with a Brahmin, the upper Hindu caste.
      Eye opening I can tell you

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here