Are these points too draconian?

[anotheoldgit]

I was recently repeatedly asked to outline 6 bullet points on the actions that I would take if I was in Number 10.

To which I replied:

Too late now, if you had asked this question 50 odd years ago, then perhaps we could have helped to solve some of today's problems.

1. All British passports to be considered void, on the granting of independence from British rule.

2. Limit immigration to include only self financing skilled persons.

3. Immigrants to learn English, and then to apply for British citizenship.

4. Ban on certain items of clothing that is alien to our culture.

5. No dispensations from the law of the land

6. Restrictions on the type of architecture, that is liable to change the face of English towns, cities and villages.

To which my original taunter was strangely 'As quiet as the grave'.

My points were more recently copied by another ABer to somehow prove his point, but once again all was quiet as the tumble-weed blew down the street.

I now enter these 6 bullet points once again, to ask ABers their opinions on them, and all I ask is for constructive non abusive answers.

[New Judge]

Yes steve, there were labour shortages in the 50s and 60s. But there were not in more recent years. What happened fifty years ago is that immigrants were invited here to fil the posts which we did not have the labour to fill. Rightly or wrongly this meant they were asked to do more menial tasks and the native workforce took the “better” jobs. What has happened recently is that labour has been imported to fill vacancies which the native population will not do whilst those left without a job are paid to do nothing. This is a ridiculous state of affairs and a nation that imports labour whilst paying people to do nothing should not be too surprised if they experience financial difficulties.

Nannybooby makes some interesting points:

“...some of the things AOG says are not practical (pont 4)down right unworkable (point5 and ) as we all have to live in a multi cultural socity”

Many countries accommodate people of different cultures (though are not foolish enough to describe themselves as “multicultural”). However, they do not allow dispensations from the law to allow those cultures to be expressed as we do in the UK. This is a recipe for resentment and division.

“For the record I cannt see how we could stop ex commonwealth members coming here it would be totally unworkable”

Why unworkable? Almost all countries outside the EU determine themselves who is and is not allowed to enter. To see how workable such a system is just try entering a country that will not allow you entry.

[ichkeria]

A big fat "nul points" to the lot of them from me apart from number 5.

"Restrictions on the type of architecture, that is liable to change the face of English towns, cities and villages. "

What about towns in the rest of the UK?

[ichkeria]

With ref to AOG's objection to them building St Basil's cathedral in Blighty
http://www.travlang.c...moscow-kremlin-45.jpg

Have you seen Brighton Pavilion (!)

[jake-the-peg]

Good job number 6 wasn't about when Christopher Wren was at work eh?

St. Pauls had the AOG's of the 17th Cenury foaming at the mouth!

Domes were Catholic!

[rojash]

"And it has took you up to answer 88 before you came to the conclusion it was down to race. "
Actually, I was replying to a comment by someone else.
And believe it or not, I don't sit monitoring this thread, I just wander back now and again when I've nothing better to do.

[ichkeria]

"Why not build a Kremlin here"

That's a church in the picture ... :-)

[THECORBYLOON]

"5. No dispensations from the law of the land"

there must be thousands of laws and Regulations governing us in the UK aog, how many dispensations are there?

[New Judge]

- Crash helmets for Sikhs not required.

- A defence against carrying a bladed article when it is used “for religious reasons” exists and has been used by Sikhs to avoid conviction when carrying their kirpan (ornamental knife).

So there’s two for starters, TCL, and that’s two too many.

I won’t begin to go down the Human Rights road where certain sections of the community seek to gain “dispensation” from the laws that govern the rest of us on “cultural” grounds.

[ichkeria]

"Crash helmets for Sikhs not required.

- A defence against carrying a bladed article when it is used “for religious reasons” exists and has been used by Sikhs to avoid conviction when carrying their kirpan (ornamental knife). etc etc "

Oh, in that case "nul points" for number 5 then :-)

[New Judge]

It certainly is, ichkeria.

There is no justification to make such exceptions for anybody in the UK. It engenders division and resentment and is neither desirable nor necessary.

[jno]

are there really people who sit around feeling resentful that Sikhs don't have to wear crash helmets? Must be nothing on the telly.

[rich47]

I suppose we have to be thankful that our free society exists and allows bigots like AOG to say what they like.

[tamborine]

My area has a spitting problem; chinese gob & asian red spit.......if its you, STOPPIT !

[Gromit]

Tambrine,

Same here but we have vomit and pis s after closing time too.

[tamborine]

We need a leaf of Singapore's caning laws.....they manage to clean their public areas

[Brenden]

Gromit, are you sure that these powers of mind reading you profess to possess are not your own latent views.

[New Judge]

I don't resent Sikhs having to wear crash helmets, jno. It's up to them if they want to smash their skull in. I only wish I could do the same - and I cannot without fear of prosecution.

[sandyRoe]

Each year how many Sikhs suffer head injuries in motorcycle accidents as a consequence of not wearing a helmet?