Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Glenda's Legs]

I love that the story now is that he didn’t realise the investigation would continue of he won. Someone’s getting new advisors.

Wasn't it Yusef who supposedly told him that? Funny whoever it was.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

He was always going to win. What will be interesting is to see what the turnout is, and what % of the vote he gets vs Count Binface.
Reform will spin it as an endorsement of Farage whatever. The good thing is that once he is re-elected the investigation can re-start. There are a few reports that all is not hunky dory behind the scenes in Reform. I guess there is only so much space for so many ambitious bigots.

If he losses a load of share and votes in whats a walkover then its a HUGE pie in the face

 

[Jurgen the German]

What you say is true, the sad part is I have not seen a credible plan from Reform or Restore and when questioning any of their supporters you don't get one beyond "tow them back" or "slash their boats"

The truth is, as you say, a complex situation with is as much about the global political situation and its impact on the world than it is our inability to merely stop boats crossing a body of water.

I don’t disagree. But I’m not sure people really care what the plan is, or even whether there is one. All they hear is another party making promises that they will “deal with” the situation. They should be held to the same standard as the government and the opposition and be expected to produce a credible, workable immigration plan rather than relying on sound bites.

 

[parklane1]

And parties like Reform and Restore will continue to win support and make inroads until both the government and the opposition come up with a credible plan to address immigration. Obviously, people like Farage go too far in the other direction, but the general public clearly doesn’t have confidence in either this government or the previous one to deal effectively with immigration—which, admittedly, is a complex issue.

My thoughts as well, i have been around a lot longer then most on here but i doubt there has ever been such poor choices of who to vote for. IF the major partys do not get their acts together then this could happen far more often.

 

[LutonSpurs]

I think there needs to be more integrity in the info consumed by the masses around the harms they perceive around immigration other than white people being a minority here. Like, do people actually care what colour people's skin is

 

[Jurgen the German]

I think there needs to be more integrity in the info consumed by the masses around the harms they perceive around immigration other than white people being a minority here. Like, do people actually care what colour people's skin is

Anecdotal, but I’ve worked with people who aren’t white who fully support a credible immigration plan. Put simply, they’re not against immigration—they just believe there need to be reasonable limits.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Anecdotal, but I’ve worked with people who aren’t white who fully support a credible immigration plan. Put simply, they’re not against immigration—they just believe there need to be reasonable limits.

That's an aside. And a given in my view. But I think deep down, alot of the anger, is the idea of lost identity. And that is driven by deep rooted concerns that this is a white Christian county. I hear about it all the time on GB news, LBC discuss it. Rupert slows loves it

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Anecdotal, but I’ve worked with people who aren’t white who fully support a credible immigration plan. Put simply, they’re not against immigration—they just believe there need to be reasonable limits.

I think thats what any reasonable person wants. Anecdotal but speaking to my long term Dr who my mum worked for (a Pakistani Muslim) feels the same, part of the rationale is because of the overspill of vitriol that comes from conflation of the two. Hard to argue with that POV really

For me alot of this comes down to like most things in this arena, yes the government has to show better leadership and planning with it, but we all as humans and communities have to be alot better at what gets said, what words are used, how anger is expressed and to who and importantly......CALLING IT OUT when we see it going badly

Everyone needs to self govern better IMO

 

[Jurgen the German]

That's an aside. And a given in my view. But I think deep down, alot of the anger, is the idea of lost identity. And that is driven by deep rooted concerns that this is a white Christian county. I hear about it all the time on GB news, LBC discuss it. Rupert slows loves it

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to have concerns about losing a sense of identity or cohesion, and I don’t think acknowledging those concerns automatically makes someone hostile to immigration. A country’s culture, traditions and way of life matter to people.

I think we should absolutely welcome immigrants who want to contribute to the country and build a life here. But integration has to work both ways: newcomers should make a genuine effort to embed themselves in our way of life, rather than expecting the existing culture and norms to completely adapt around them. That doesn’t mean abandoning anyone’s heritage or background; it means having a shared set of values and a common civic identity that everyone can be part of.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

But integration has to work both ways: newcomers should make a genuine effort to embed themselves in our way of life, rather than expecting the existing culture and norms to completely adapt around them

Not sure I totally agree with that, maybe I have blocked them out but what norms are Brits having to change to adapt round others? If someone wants to live by their own religion and traditions I am all ok with it, there are 66m people in the UK and I know about 30 people well enough to call friends and maybe 100 total who are associates, that means the rest I don't know and they don't impact me in any way shape or form, let alone what their lifestyle is like. Its not like anyone ever beats me round the head about observing or forcing me into some cultural situation thats not British, thats never happened and I have lived in some of the most multicultural parts of London.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Not sure I totally agree with that, maybe I have blocked them out but what norms are Brits having to change to adapt round others? If someone wants to live by their own religion and traditions I am all ok with it, there are 66m people in the UK and I know about 30 people well enough to call friends and maybe 100 total who are associates, that means the rest I don't know and they don't impact me in any way shape or form, let alone what their lifestyle is like. Its not like anyone ever beats me round the head about observing or forcing me into some cultural situation thats not British, thats never happened and I have lived in some of the most multicultural parts of London.

I’d agree that some default norms of British institutions have been altered.

For example:

• Schools: accommodating halal or vegetarian food, allowing pupils reasonable flexibility around religious observance, or making space for prayer can be perfectly reasonable. But there can be a point where the school’s curriculum, activities or rules are being altered substantially because of particular religious requirements. The question is whether the accommodation remains proportionate and compatible with the school’s broader purpose.
• Public institutions: councils, hospitals and other public bodies sometimes provide services or guidance tailored to particular religious or cultural groups. Again, much of that is simply good public service. But there’s a legitimate question about whether institutions should primarily operate according to common, universal rules, with exceptions where genuinely necessary, rather than increasingly designing policies around the preferences of particular communities.
• Language and religious sensitivities: Britain has traditionally had a fairly strong culture of being able to criticise, mock and disagree with religions and ideologies. As Britain has become more religiously diverse, there have been increasing debates about whether certain speech is offensive or insensitive to particular communities. There’s nothing wrong with asking people to be civil, but I think there is a distinction between not deliberately being a dingdong to someone because of their religion and creating an expectation that everyone else has to avoid saying things that might offend that religion.
• Businesses and workplaces: employers may make perfectly reasonable accommodations for religious observance, dietary requirements or dress. But the underlying principle should be that these are accommodations within a shared framework, rather than each workplace effectively having to operate according to the separate cultural expectations of every group represented within it.
• Public life generally: things like changing the way services are delivered, providing translated materials, recognising different religious festivals, or adapting facilities can all be sensible. None of those things are inherently problematic. The question is whether there remains a clear British baseline that applies to everyone.

And I think there's a perfectly legitimate argument that the default should be: come here, keep your religion and heritage, but integrate into the existing civic culture rather than expecting the host culture to continually reorganise itself around you. That isn't the same as saying people should abandon their identity; it's saying that a functioning society needs some shared norms that aren't endlessly negotiable.

So I’m not arguing that immigrants are walking around forcing British people to change how they live. I agree that, for most of us, that simply isn’t the reality. My point is more that immigration on a large scale inevitably has some effect on the culture and institutions of a country, and I don't think it’s unreasonable to want that change to have limits. We can be welcoming and tolerant of people maintaining their own religion, traditions and heritage while still expecting everyone who settles here to participate in a shared British civic culture.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I think the burka and niqab are actually a good example of where reasonable accommodation has limits. I have no problem with someone being Muslim, practising their religion or maintaining their cultural traditions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there are certain environments where showing your face should be the norm for everyone.

If I'm seeing a doctor about something important, I want to be able to see their face and for them to see mine. If I'm opening a bank account, sitting an exam, going through security or entering somewhere where identification matters, I don't think asking someone to uncover their face is an unreasonable imposition. And importantly, that isn't about singling out Muslims — it's a rule based on the particular situation.

I also think there's a broader cultural point. Britain has historically been a society where people interact face-to-face, and being able to see someone's face is an important part of communication. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the established norms of our institutions should automatically be changed whenever a religious or cultural practice conflicts with them.

At the same time, I wouldn't want to tell someone they can't practise their religion or wear religious clothing in their private life. If someone freely chooses to wear a niqab or burka, that's their decision. My issue is where that choice comes into environments where there are legitimate reasons for a common rule to apply to everybody. That's where I think integration should mean adapting to the existing rules of the society you've chosen to live in, rather than expecting the rules to change around you.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I’d agree that some default norms of British institutions have been altered.

For example:

• Schools: accommodating halal or vegetarian food, allowing pupils reasonable flexibility around religious observance, or making space for prayer can be perfectly reasonable. But there can be a point where the school’s curriculum, activities or rules are being altered substantially because of particular religious requirements. The question is whether the accommodation remains proportionate and compatible with the school’s broader purpose.
• Public institutions: councils, hospitals and other public bodies sometimes provide services or guidance tailored to particular religious or cultural groups. Again, much of that is simply good public service. But there’s a legitimate question about whether institutions should primarily operate according to common, universal rules, with exceptions where genuinely necessary, rather than increasingly designing policies around the preferences of particular communities.
• Language and religious sensitivities: Britain has traditionally had a fairly strong culture of being able to criticise, mock and disagree with religions and ideologies. As Britain has become more religiously diverse, there have been increasing debates about whether certain speech is offensive or insensitive to particular communities. There’s nothing wrong with asking people to be civil, but I think there is a distinction between not deliberately being a dingdong to someone because of their religion and creating an expectation that everyone else has to avoid saying things that might offend that religion.
• Businesses and workplaces: employers may make perfectly reasonable accommodations for religious observance, dietary requirements or dress. But the underlying principle should be that these are accommodations within a shared framework, rather than each workplace effectively having to operate according to the separate cultural expectations of every group represented within it.
• Public life generally: things like changing the way services are delivered, providing translated materials, recognising different religious festivals, or adapting facilities can all be sensible. None of those things are inherently problematic. The question is whether there remains a clear British baseline that applies to everyone.

And I think there's a perfectly legitimate argument that the default should be: come here, keep your religion and heritage, but integrate into the existing civic culture rather than expecting the host culture to continually reorganise itself around you. That isn't the same as saying people should abandon their identity; it's saying that a functioning society needs some shared norms that aren't endlessly negotiable.

So I’m not arguing that immigrants are walking around forcing British people to change how they live. I agree that, for most of us, that simply isn’t the reality. My point is more that immigration on a large scale inevitably has some effect on the culture and institutions of a country, and I don't think it’s unreasonable to want that change to have limits. We can be welcoming and tolerant of people maintaining their own religion, traditions and heritage while still expecting everyone who settles here to participate in a shared British civic culture.

Are the bullet points AI? Not a dig just impacts my response as some of it feel generic (Vegetarian part etc)

 

[Jurgen the German]

Are the bullet points AI? Not a dig just impacts my response as some of it feel generic (Vegetarian part etc)

Not AI. Probably a bit too much detail.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think the burka and niqab are actually a good example of where reasonable accommodation has limits. I have no problem with someone being Muslim, practising their religion or maintaining their cultural traditions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there are certain environments where showing your face should be the norm for everyone.

TBH I think this is one where people get their knickers in a twist over something that does not impact them, I mean from the sheer numbers alone, there are only an estimated low 1000 or so wearers in the UK, they think even less, that can't be a mainstream issue for me.

If I'm seeing a doctor about something important, I want to be able to see their face and for them to see mine. If I'm opening a bank account, sitting an exam, going through security or entering somewhere where identification matters, I don't think asking someone to uncover their face is an unreasonable imposition. And importantly, that isn't about singling out Muslims — it's a rule based on the particular situation.

Given the low numbers of wearers I am not sure in how many numbers these scenarios would play out in real life. In some of those examples they don't play, I mean you don't even meet F2F to open a bank account anymore, for others there are provisions made for security (there are also strict laws about this for travel, I know because the Middle East and Asia is somewhere I travel alot).

I also think there's a broader cultural point. Britain has historically been a society where people interact face-to-face, and being able to see someone's face is an important part of communication. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the established norms of our institutions should automatically be changed whenever a religious or cultural practice conflicts with them.

Again its not a norm, its a HUGE minority, yes we are a face to face culture but if in the once in a million time I might
encounter myself in a situation where I have to have a conversation with a woman wear a Burka I will think I could be respectful enough to appreciate their religion and live to tell the tale

At the same time, I wouldn't want to tell someone they can't practise their religion or wear religious clothing in their private life. If someone freely chooses to wear a niqab or burka, that's their decision. My issue is where that choice comes into environments where there are legitimate reasons for a common rule to apply to everybody. That's where I think integration should mean adapting to the existing rules of the society you've chosen to live in, rather than expecting the rules to change around you.

I think we move into really dodgy territory here which comes from outside of religion where we start telling people what they can can can't wear and what our expectations are of women. That area is far more grey in that respect than us as a country respecting the wishes of around 1000 women.

 

[Jurgen the German]

TBH I think this is one where people get their knickers in a twist over something that does not impact them, I mean from the sheer numbers alone, there are only an estimated low 1000 or so wearers in the UK, they think even less, that can't be a mainstream issue for me.



Given the low numbers of wearers I am not sure in how many numbers these scenarios would play out in real life. In some of those examples they don't play, I mean you don't even meet F2F to open a bank account anymore, for others there are provisions made for security (there are also strict laws about this for travel, I know because the Middle East and Asia is somewhere I travel alot).



Again its not a norm, its a HUGE minority, yes we are a face to face culture but if in the once in a million time I might
encounter myself in a situation where I have to have a conversation with a woman wear a Burka I will think I could be respectful enough to appreciate their religion and live to tell the tale


I think we move into really dodgy territory here which comes from outside of religion where we start telling people what they can can can't wear and what our expectations are of women. That area is far more grey in that respect than us as a country respecting the wishes of around 1000 women.

I don’t think people are, and saying things like “people are getting their knickers in a twist” just winds people up even more.

The scenarios I mentioned come from my own experience. For example, my sister and I are joint power of attorney for my mum, who has dementia. One of us, or sometimes both of us, has to go into the bank to pay her care home bills and move money around, due to the strict rules in the LPA, we’re not allowed to have online banking.

I completely respect people’s rights and their religion, but why should religious or cultural practices trump legitimate security requirements? If you’re in an airport, a school, a bank or somewhere else where identification and security matter, is it really unreasonable to expect someone to show their face? Surely the same rules should apply to everyone.

 

[johnaliola]

I don’t think people are, and saying things like “people are getting their knickers in a twist” just winds people up even more.

The scenarios I mentioned come from my own experience. For example, my sister and I are joint power of attorney for my mum, who has dementia. One of us, or sometimes both of us, has to go into the bank to pay her care home bills and move money around, due to the strict rules in the LPA, we’re not allowed to have online banking.

I completely respect people’s rights and their religion, but why should religious or cultural practices trump legitimate security requirements? If you’re in an airport, a school, a bank or somewhere else where identification and security matter, is it really unreasonable to expect someone to show their face? Surely the same rules should apply to everyone.

Sorry who told you you can’t have online banking as an attorney lol? You can just access your mums.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Schools: accommodating halal or vegetarian food, allowing pupils reasonable flexibility around religious observance, or making space for prayer can be perfectly reasonable. But there can be a point where the school’s curriculum, activities or rules are being altered substantially because of particular religious requirements. The question is whether the accommodation remains proportionate and compatible with the school’s broader purpose.

Not sure the significance of Vegetarian food, but I understand why Halal might be a problem for some, I am not sure how prevalent it is in Schools, I would have to be shown that to know if its even a valid concern proportionate to the complaints people have. In terms of curriculum, form what my Son says, from the work he does, there is actually less emphasis on religious education than when I was at school, I understand this might change from boroughs and catchments but I don't see much to be worried about there. Being a Jew in a Catholic school in London in the 80s, I can tell you there were major allowances then too and it was never a bad thing.

• Public institutions: councils, hospitals and other public bodies sometimes provide services or guidance tailored to particular religious or cultural groups. Again, much of that is simply good public service. But there’s a legitimate question about whether institutions should primarily operate according to common, universal rules, with exceptions where genuinely necessary, rather than increasingly designing policies around the preferences of particular communities.

I don't think this can be perceived as a bad thing whatsoever.

• Language and religious sensitivities: Britain has traditionally had a fairly strong culture of being able to criticise, mock and disagree with religions and ideologies. As Britain has become more religiously diverse, there have been increasing debates about whether certain speech is offensive or insensitive to particular communities. There’s nothing wrong with asking people to be civil, but I think there is a distinction between not deliberately being a dingdong to someone because of their religion and creating an expectation that everyone else has to avoid saying things that might offend that religion.

I agree to a point, I also think people over play this "I am not allowed to say what I think" when what they think is clearly just offensive and racist. I agree we should be able to mock religion, I have done it on here and I have not been pulled up on it ever. We had this conversation at length before and the examples provided are a small handful where as a country we have likely got it wrong by being overly sensitive

• Businesses and workplaces: employers may make perfectly reasonable accommodations for religious observance, dietary requirements or dress. But the underlying principle should be that these are accommodations within a shared framework, rather than each workplace effectively having to operate according to the separate cultural expectations of every group represented within it.

Again I think this is sensible attitudes to work and culture, I have worked abroad alot in my life and the same curtesy has been extended to me and it made a huge difference. I am not sure what real accommodations can be classed as an issue, the examples given are certainly not as they happen outside religion and race anyway (in the example of dietary). Not sure what religious observations would impact, I have worked with multiple observing faiths and haven't seen any preference or change in work pattern, so I would need real examples of impact to comment fully.

• Public life generally: things like changing the way services are delivered, providing translated materials, recognising different religious festivals, or adapting facilities can all be sensible. None of those things are inherently problematic. The question is whether there remains a clear British baseline that applies to everyone.

We have recognised religious festivals for years, they can be some of the most fulfilling moments shared IMO. Growing up in Whitechapel and being invited to and sharing in Eid, Diwali, Chinese New Year etc have been incredible, why would we not recognise the wider world outside the UK regardless of if these people are not even here?

• The question is whether there remains a clear British baseline that applies to everyone.

I would throw this back to you, because its a question I can't answer at any great length and I think people struggle with when asked, but does this look like to you? What is this British baseline, what is British culture where one size fits all? Because in my opinion, even British values/cultures change as you move across the country anyway, regardless of immigration. So what in one paragraph is British Culture and what part of that, in which you think is British Culture do you think we are losing

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I don’t think people are, and saying things like “people are getting their knickers in a twist” just winds people up even more.

Ironic when the claim is part of British culture is the right to offend and mock, you can't have it all ways TBF

The scenarios I mentioned come from my own experience. For example, my sister and I are joint power of attorney for my mum, who has dementia. One of us, or sometimes both of us, has to go into the bank to pay her care home bills and move money around, due to the strict rules in the LPA, we’re not allowed to have online banking.

Ok well firstly thats massively different scenario to just opening a bank account, I wasn't to know it was a specific case. But to be clear you don't need to show your face to just open a bank account for yourself, just saying.

I also did the same for my dad and If I could have given you any advise I would say to have done it all from their existing account, I did that till my father passed

But the scenario would exist for Burka wearers as it does you, not sure why you think its not

I completely respect people’s rights and their religion, but why should religious or cultural practices trump legitimate security requirements? If you’re in an airport, a school, a bank or somewhere else where identification and security matter, is it really unreasonable to expect someone to show their face? Surely the same rules should apply to everyone.

But they do have to show their face in airports, thats literally in law, for entering in buildings and stop and search they have to show their faces. Faces must be shown on passports etc

For anything official F2F where identification is needed these people do exactly the same us as, they have ID, they have to show their face.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to have concerns about losing a sense of identity or cohesion, and I don’t think acknowledging those concerns automatically makes someone hostile to immigration. A country’s culture, traditions and way of life matter to people.

I think we should absolutely welcome immigrants who want to contribute to the country and build a life here. But integration has to work both ways: newcomers should make a genuine effort to embed themselves in our way of life, rather than expecting the existing culture and norms to completely adapt around them. That doesn’t mean abandoning anyone’s heritage or background; it means having a shared set of values and a common civic identity that everyone can be part of.

Do you honestly believe that the Reform/Restore type voters actually want immigrants to integrate? It’s an easy cover argument but if these immigrants were to move into their areas they would be up in arms.