It has been an interesting week for the Establishment. And a bad one for the Republicans.

The Republicans lost an election because there are too many Hispanic, black and female voters and too few white, working and lower middle class men. The so called Rainbow coalition will continue to grow. That is the nature of “the American Demographic” and it is irreversible. This is the nature of history.

History progresses inexorably driven not simply by economics as Marx assumed, but by demographics and economics. For example, I would argue that anyone taking a proper perspective on the fall of the Roman Empire and the eventual creation of what we call the Dark Ages – the forerunner of modern Europe – would have to put as number one factor the simple demographic fact of a population explosion amongst tribes of eastern Europe and indeed the Steppes, all surging towards the richer lands of the West. That is a brief exposition, but it is essentially correct. The Hun, the Visigoths, the Vandals, all shoved west. The Angles shoved west too, and created “Angle Land”: England.

And what of the Establishment? By the Establishment I mean the cadre of self appointed left of centre and largely atheist intellectuals who tend to dominate the public life and have laid down the agenda for social policy since after World War II. The discerning characteristics of this class have to my mind been along the following lines:

• • An abiding hatred of any sense of national pride and self respect.
• • An attitude towards the working classes of something between paternalistic distain and dismissive disgust.
• • A deep seated love of wealth and high living: see under this heading the Blairs.
• • A lack of spine.
• • Defeatism. How the Falklands war irked!
• • A voracious capacity to obtain very well paid and secure employment in the higher echelons of the public services – including and perhaps especially the BBC.
• • Ignorance of history. This is an indication of both distain for the story of one’s own people and land, and also absence of intellectual rigour. No, scrub that – it is an indication of stupidity. History is the great teacher. The names, the clothes and the technology change, but the human condition remains exactly the same as it was in 15,000 years BC.

And this week has not been a good week for Auntie Beeb. In the curious case of the Cancelled Documentary the Beeb seems to have canned an important investigation into the nefarious activities of a former employee of the BBC. Then the Beeb broadcasts a documentary which suggests a senior conservative politician was a peadophile, when it is clear that is wholly untrue, based on deficient research – they had not even shown the victim (who also seems a genuine man, by the way) a picture to check if it was the right man. The Director General doesn’t know what has been going on. And he is toast. For the moment Chris Patten – a man who appears to have no significant use in life at all, but who is great at obtaining sinecures – hangs on. We shall see. Hmmm…..

Meanwhile inquiries abound. We now have an inquiry into an inquiry, as I understand it. The Establishment loves inquiries, but is always obsessed by process and form, not substance. It does not the truth, it likes agendas. So terms of reference are imposed and “senior independent persons” (i.e. people who are not independent minded and who know the game, and depend on the state for their salary and lavish pension) are appointed. They provide the expedient result for the day, acutely sensitive to political agenda. It is their default position. Who remembers Lord Hutton? I do!

Whilst all this has been going on other people outside the media firestorm have carried on their ordinary lives, paying taxes, struggling along, being murdered…

One case which has been brought to my attention by the always informed (and well researched) Yorkshire Post is that of Mr. Ahmad Otak. It seems to have slipped under the mainstream media a bit this week, what with all the attention on the BBC and the hapless ex Director General, although after a brief bit of googling did find a short report in the “Daily Fail”

Mr. Otak is from Afghanistan. That is the place which we are trying to convert into Islington by the cunning strategy of having many hundreds of our young men and woman being killed and maimed. Although history would suggest that any attempt to impose an external culture on Afghanistan will fail. But then there is that history word again…

Be that as it may, Mr. Otak turned up in This Sceptered Isle in 2006. He claimed to be 16, but he was not; he was older but he knew “the system”, and how it worked. Remarkably, I know of a very good and kind person – British born and bred – who fled an unhappy marriage and an “expat” lifestyle in the Gulf to come back to Britain with the children in tow. She has had the devil of a job getting any help or benefits from “The system” and has really struggled. Not unsympathetic officials have explained that it would be so much easier if she had been claiming asylum. The system is all set up and kicks in with a benefit package once the magic word is uttered…

But I digress….

Anyway, he got in, and owing to his alleged age he was placed in a children’s unit run by social services. There he met a vulnerable young girl called Elisa Frank and formed an “on off” and rather controlling and threatening relationship with her.

Remarkably, his claim to asylum was rejected. Praise be! Notwithstanding that, he remained in this country, and was granted “humanitarian protection” until November 2013. I have no record of Mr. Otak doing any work. I have all the researching tenacity of a Newsnight reporter, you see. So I haven’t asked…

However Elisa seems sensibly to have tired of his affections and decided to finish with him. This caused Mr. Otak to become very angry. Perhaps he felt his Human Rights had been violated by this slight. Who can say? In any event he threatened to kill Elisa’s family if she did not take him back. Elisa’s friend, a very pretty girl called Samantha Sykes, reported his disturbing behaviour to the UK Border Agency, but when Elisa Frank was too scared to make a formal complaint nothing was done.

He then decided to take some direct action. On the pretext of arranging to return some clothes and a pet kitten he arranged to meet Elisa at her flat in Wakefield. He came bearing not a kitten, but a carving knife.

First of all he killed her sister Kimberly, repeatedly stabbing and slashing her in front of Elisa before, as the prosecuting QC told the court, licking the blood from his knife and spitting on the body. The description of the wounds in the newspaper report is graphic and very upsetting and I will not set out the detail here.

He then tied up Elisa with some electrical flex and made her send a text message luring her friend Samantha to the flat, and I am sad to report she received the same treatment. Again the details are too distressing to repeat.

He then forced Elisa to flee with him. He headed to Dover, in an attempt to board a lorry and head to France. There he was disarmed and arrested. Then at Leeds Crown Court week he was handed a life term with a minimum of 34 years.

As a story it is depressing and alarming on so many fronts. I suppose one may say that in a sense it shows that the system was working; Otak had been scheduled for deportation, albeit at some date in the future…

But does anyone think he would have ever gone?

Before I am accused of some sort of raging anti asylum seeker rant, there is an ironic detail in the case. When he was in Dover it was another illegal immigrant who bravely disarmed him, allowing Elisa to escape. Well done that man or woman!

But there is not doubt in my mind that Britain’s policy and practice on asylum seeker is weak and ineffective. The problem with people like Otak is not just that they are raving psychopaths, but that they share absolutely no cultural values with the country that gives them shelter. These are people that for the moment the Establishment does not have to deal with; vulnerable and poor people like Elisa do. I say for the moment, because the problem of lack of affinity with the values of a mature Western democracy will not go away. I have the feeling that it will grow. And one day it may grow so large as to come to haunt even those who live their cosseted and cosy life with the house in Hampstead and the villa in Tuscany.

It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the demographics, stupid.

Sigillum

Observor November 14, 2012 at 10:18

This US election was the most important in the last 50 years
The
republicans are finished if they do not move back to the center. Groups like
Hispanics, single mothers, Blacks, Asians are rapidly growing in size.
The
‘angry old white man’ group is diminishing. If the Republicans ignore these
facts they are finished.
Nor could a hand full of billionaires buy the
election.

More importantly- I believe the tales I am hearing : that Annonymous
‘fixed’ a patch that was meant to swing the Ohio and Florida votes to
republicans as they have in the past 10 years. That explains Karl Rove’s
dismay as the truth dawned.

the only grip I have with your fascinating piece is your belief the
McAlpine accuser was a ‘genuine’ man. I say the opposite and Richard Webster
gave conclusive proof that he has seemingly made a good living out of being
the victim and has falsely accused someone before. Also i do not believe for a
minute that he himself could not have sought out photographs of McAlpine. And
I abhor this concept that somehow a victim of abuse(which I believe he is)
should somehow be forgiven for what he does.

JvJ November 13, 2012 at 18:44

BTW – everything else: +1

Don Cox November 13, 2012 at 18:43

Getting back to Otak, it occurs to me that he may have fled his homeland to
escape the consequences of a previous murder.

JvJ November 13, 2012 at 18:32

‘… a genuine man’

Hardly, if being NOT genuine is defined by:
1. Being determined to be an
‘unreliable witness’ by a judge
2. Being a convicted benefit fraudster
(pleading guilty, and thus in this soft system, escaping punishment)
3.
Being someone who punches a barrister in open court when being cross-examined
by said barrister
4. Being a ‘victim’ whose sexual abusers rise
progressively by stages (it increases on each interrogation/allegation) from 1
to 49(!)

Have you seen a photograph of him?

JvJ November 13, 2012 at 18:36

I know, I know … one shoudn’t judge by appearances, but sometimes …

JvJ November 13, 2012 at 18:37

shouldn’t

Frankie
November 13, 2012 at 23:20

A more unreliable witness would be difficult to imagine… What on
earth were the BBC doing? His antecedents were well known enough to
check without much effort. Astonishing!

JuliaM November 14, 2012 at 05:14

Checking my Twitter stream from last night, I see he’s tried the
old ‘Goodbye, cruel world!’ tactic, prompting lots of outpourings of
attention by his followers (and those who like to take vicarious part
in other people’s drama) and another wasted callout for the poor,
truly long suffering ambulance staff.

Cynical Observer
November 13, 2012 at 14:34

Very good post Sigillum.

Unfortunately, as regards: “…even those who live their cosseted and cosy
life with the house in Hampstead and the villa in Tuscany.”
‘They’ will
have long since fled these sceptic isles & retired to said Tuscan villa.

Don Cox November 13, 2012 at 18:30

Why is the immigration of British people to Tuscany OK, while immigration
of Rumanians to Britain is not OK ?

Bob H November 13, 2012 at 22:27

Don Cox November 13, 2012 at 18:30

Why is the immigration of British people to Tuscany OK, while
immigration of Rumanians to Britain is not OK ?

Come on Don, engage brain before keyboard. Brits don’t go to Tuscany to
sponge off the system or rob the local people.

Moor Larkin November 13, 2012 at 12:09

Oh come on, black voters in the USA have always been almost exclusively
Democrat, regardless of the colour of the Prez. If Obama had any effect it was
just to get more black people to vote. 40% of Hispanics voted for Dubbya I
believe, so again the Republicans have just alienated a group of people scared
to death of the Mad Hatter’s tea-party. If the Republicans have any sense
they’ll persuade Condoleeza to stand next time and get a grip of
themselves.

JuliaM November
13, 2012 at 18:03

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em…? What the hell happened to
principles?

Personally, I think Condi would be a brilliant pick. For who she is,
though. Not for what colour she is.

Anna
Raccoon November 13, 2012 at
18:12

Seconded – I’d vote for Condi, whatever her politics!

Frankie
November 13, 2012 at 23:17

Thirded!! Condi is the greatest US President never to take
office…

Moor Larkin November 13, 2012 at 22:25

It’s the fact that she’s a woman that makes her ideal. Being black too
is just a nice coincidence. I’m half-expecting both parties to have a
woman candidate next time around. Having the next president guaranteed to
be the first woman would be a Win Win so far as I can see. Having someone
like Condoleezza, who actually knows somehting about what to expect, makes
her seem a perfect fit to me and a perfect “first lady” in the proper
sense of the term. Anyhow, there’s four more years first. Lots to happen
in the meantime.

Mewsical November 13, 2012 at 19:10

I think it’s more likely that Governor Christie may get (and accept) the
Republican nomination next time, because when his state, New Jersey, was hit
with a storm as devastating in its own way as Katrina, he had the good sense
to stop playing partisan politics and work with Obama for the good of the
people. Imo, it was this one example of elected officials working together
without any reliance on party politics that changed the tide of the election
at the last minute. Christie endorsed Obama without actually endorsing him,
and it was very clear to the American public exactly the character of both
men. I hope Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination for the Democrats.
Condoleeza is old news, part of the Bush administration, and wouldn’t get
support just because she’s an African-American. Obama may have gotten the
first election with the fact he is of African and American descent, but he
held the job because he is the right person to be President and he’s proved
it.

Clarissa November 13, 2012 at 21:31

Whilst the assumption of blacks voting Democrat generally holds, it has
always struck me as strange given that they have reason to be thankful to
Lincoln and Eisenhower (both Republicans) for the ending* slavery and
segregation respectively.

* Yes, this is simplistic but those were the guys in charge at the
time.

Mudplugger November 13, 2012 at 11:57

The most concerning demographic factor in the US election was in the split
of the African/American vote – it was 94/6 in favour of Obama.

In any two-party, nationwide political system, you would reasonably expect
any sector’s vote-split range to be more modest, based on the voters’ natural
split of political preferences. 60/40 is probably the limit of the natural
range nationwide – even in the UK’s deepest working-class areas, there are
still many people who vote against type, just as there are in the ‘true-blue’
areas, meaning 80/20 can occur at most, but only in small zones.

For 94% of a national population group to vote one way betrays the fact
that they were mostly only voting for colour – black folks voting for a black
candidate simply because he is black, not from any reasoned sharing of his
political direction. That has potentially huge implications on future
electoral strategies for parties.

In Britain we may think it less likely because we vote in small
consituencies rather than for a single national leader, but the same effect
can be seen at work in areas with high densities of particular ethnic groups.
There is a marked tendency to vote for the same ethnic group, regardless of
party-label or policies, hence some very strange local election results in the
likes of Bradford and Rochdale – basically, any white candidate standing in a
very ethnic area is wasting his/her time, whatever party rosette is worn or
policies offered. Voting can often reflect historic village and family issues,
rather than anything applying to the UK. And that is a perversion of
democracy, it is thoughtless voting and often results in awarding seats to
inadequate candidates. Extrapolate that onto the national stage and the impact
may become alarming.

I have no problem with any Black, Asian, Latino, female, gay, disabled or
any other breed of candidate being elected by a thoughtful electorate having
analysed the policies on offer, but I am concerned that the increasingly
‘tribal’ nature of voting, both in the USA and here, will have consequences
for our democracies which do not feel positive.

M Barnes November 13, 2012 at 19:20

‘ being elected by a thoughtful electorate having analysed the policies
on offer,’

In the history of democracy in this country and any other the thoughtful
electorate as you’ve defined them has always been a minority. Am not saying
that to be fashionably cynical – it’s simply human nature. People tend to
vote for the same party as their parents, they tend to vote for teh same
party through their lives – unless something happens to seriously hack them
off – and they tend to get more conservative as they get older.

Moor Larkin November 13, 2012 at 11:39

I actually posted this elsewhere yesterday, but the trains of thought seem
to run on parallel lines.

“The performance of the DG was incredibly mirrored by the boss of another
public organisation, whom I saw being grilled on BBC Parliament last night. He
had spent 12 years in post, as opposed to 55 days, and claimed to have the
most perfect “system” in place to communicate upwards to him, through all the
layers of his organisation. The MP’s Committee seemed incredulous that in
those 12 years he had never heard a whisper about events that had led to
criminal arrests and a massive scandal in his area of operations. He explained
that he could only conclude that the reason he did not know about what had
been going on was because his “people” did not tell him. The supreme irony was
that this was the ex-Head of Rochdale Council where children in care have been
being prostituted for several years.

I guess that if the British are all watching MP’s in the Jungle, rather
than in Parliament, it’s hardly surprising that they believe everything they
read in the newspapers, and equally unsurprising that the newspapers continue
to tell them what the newspapers want them to hear. Silence of the Lambs.”

I should explain for those on the wider world web that the “MP’s in the
jungle” comment relates to this
http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/local/nadine-in-the-jungle-episode-2-1-4470896
But
the even funnier part of that article is the responsible politician who
supports her.

It’s easy to see why Nero took comfort in his fiddling.

Don Cox November 13, 2012 at 11:36

“Is there a deliberate plan to destroy nations?”

I think it is the inevitable effect of modern transport and communications.
People whose illiterate peasant ancestors never travelled further than the
nearest market town can now hop on a plane and take a holiday in another
continent. We can now read blogs by people from all over the world and join in
the discussions.

The whole world is getting mixed.

Ken Ferguson
November 13, 2012 at 11:21

The problem with people like Otak is not just that they are raving
psychopaths, but that they share absolutely no cultural values with the
country that gives them shelter.

Eh!!!

Do you mean those cultural values that mean we don’t hack people to
pieces?

Really?

I was under the impression that we had plenty of psychopaths here.

As a libertarian, I am in favour of the free and unrestricted movement of
people across state borders. This is a very sad tale but the problem with
“people like Otak” is not that they have come from Afghanistan but that they
are violent criminals.

And if you want to talk about morality, at least we allowed this man into
the country of our own volition, he did not have to enter by force. The
Afghans didn’t have the same choice when we sent them our young men.

JimS November 13, 2012 at 16:07

As a libertarian, I am in favour of the free and unrestricted movement
of people across state borders.

And as a libertarian are you in favour of self-determination? If,
suppose, the populations of China and India decided to go in for a bit of
‘unrestricted movement’ should the overwhelmed ‘host’ nations just accept
that they are now de facto colonies of China or India?

The ‘Hampstead’ set can guilt-trip out over the elimination of the Aztec,
‘First Nation’ peoples, Australian Aboriginals and New Zealand Maori yet
revel in the destruction of their own culture (‘we’ deserve it). But then,
if it gets too much our Hampstead ‘Libertarians’ will just pick up their UN
paid for air ticket, (taxed or rationed out of the reach of the white,
racist, swivelled-eyed, Daily Mail-reading scum that pick up the bill).
Utopia is a lovely place.

Ken Ferguson
November 13, 2012 at 17:26

And as a libertarian are you in favour of
self-determination?

Yes. For individuals, not for nation states.

Criticising immigration because of the actions of one violent person is
like criticising the NHS because it employed Harold Shipman. Now we can
have an excellent debate about the relative merits of immigration (or the
NHS) but not based on the argument made here.

There are plenty of places on the net and elsewhere that give exposure
to irrational right wing nonsense like this, I just don’t expect to see it
on this blog.

Backwoodsman November 13, 2012 at 18:07

As a libertarian, I am in favour of the free and unrestricted
movement of people across state borders. This is a very sad tale but the
problem with “people like Otak” is not that they have come from
Afghanistan but that they are violent criminals.
Wirh respect Ken,
thats a very wooly form of Libertarianism you have there and one which I
feel is unlikely to impress the many Libertarians who hang their hats in
the snug at the Racoon Arms.
Leaving aside the little local dificulty
of the entire population of Africa and most of SE Asia wishing to move
to Europe as economic migrants, I would venture to suggest that you
delve a little deeper into the actions and thought processes of those
brought up under the tenents of the ‘religion of peace’, before you
attempt to defend their actions.

Ken
Ferguson November 13, 2012 at
19:20

Wirh respect Ken, thats a very wooly form of Libertarianism you
have there and one which I feel is unlikely to impress the many
Libertarians who hang their hats in the snug at the Racoon
Arms.

On the contrary, it is the very opposite of a “wooly” form of
libertarianism- it is absolutely clear and principled.

Libertarians believe in open borders and if anyone hanging their
hat here is self-defining as a libertarian whilst opposing immigration
because Muslims are more likely to be terrorists, blacks are more
likely to be gangsters and Afghan asylum seekers are more likely to be
murderers they are not only self-defining, they are self-deluding.

Problems with all criminality should, of course, be tackled by a
rigid application of the rule of law.

Clarissa November 13, 2012 at 21:38

Economic migrants? Excellent – and the more the merrier. If we must
keep the welfare state going then we need their tax money.

Edna Fletcher
November 13, 2012 at 22:01

India and China are economically on the up compared to Britain and
areas of Europe. Do you really think the populations of China and India
would need to go in for a bit of ‘unrestricted movement’ in current times?
I doubt it if they read the papers.

Those who do turn up end up, if lucky, in the care / hospitality
industry because their chances of earning even as much as commanded in
these low paid jobs in Britain is decidedly more than they could command
in China or India. And the care industry needs people because it is a
growth area not enticing the indigenous. History tells us much- the
immigration of the 1950′s had a similar picture.The others live under
bridges it seems.

Frankie November 13, 2012 at 23:14

I like to think I am of a libertarian persuasion, but… mixed with common
sense.

I can see no virtue at all in allowing this young man to remain, as he
has abused our hospitality most greviously and will now cost the taxpayer
approximately 64,000 pounds per annum (the cost of housing a Category ‘A’
prisoner) and still less reason that loveable Abu Qatada should remain here
a millisecond longer, claiming benefits, living in a taxpayer funded house,
not contributing anything to the country he has adopted, fulminating terror
and preaching hatred and intolerance and then having the unmitigated gall
and brass neck to challenge our right to fire him off back whence he came,
by using yet more taxpayers money and the system of law he so obviously
despises to thwart those attempts to get him to answer for his behaviour. No
wonder he’s smiling!! The whole situation is a bloody farce! If he didn’t
want to land in the ‘poo’ with the Jordanians, he should have kept his big
gob shut. He is the author of his own misfortune. Time to face up.

I am of the opinion that the country is all the richer for so much
diversity now resident here. Its wonderful to see that so many people want
to make the UK their home and I like to see and speak to as many of the
different people that we now have on our shores and sample their culture.
Think, for example, how appallingly awful our standard British cuisine would
be without all the marvelous and exotic food we can now sample, or the
massively diverse music that we are now exposed to BUT… let’s get rid of the
wasters, the scroungers, the non-contributors, the detractors, the trouble
makers. We have enough of our own workshy home bred dross that were born
here… We don’t need any more foreign imports who have no intention of either
integrating or contributing or trying to ferment trouble and division.

Come if you want to make the UK a great place. If you don’t want to work
and want to live off others and want to make trouble, then don’t.

M Barnes November 13, 2012 at 10:31

The republicans lost the election because their public utterances on any
non-whites were almost entirely about stopping ‘them’ getting in or making
‘them’ self-deport – the overall impression being ‘we don’t want their sort
here’. Anytime newer immigrant groups were mentioned in was in the same
sentence as tightening immigration policy and kicking them out. Rather ironic
given America’s development as a nation and the Statue of Liberty inscription
about all those huddled masses. But then, America also has a history of older
immigrant groups rioting against the influx of the next immigrant group in
line: the germans rioted about the irish, the irish and the germans rioted
about the freed slaves… and so on.
The social and fiscal conservatism of
the Republicans would appeal to significant sections of the new demographics
and they could have won that election. Certainly if they’d paid the slightest
bit of attention to Jeb Bush. But they didn’t. Romney went on and on about the
economy and other, shall we say tea-partyish, candidates hit the headlines
with some barking nonsense from the further reaches of luddite-land. And
although they don’t operate like the party system here those barking nutjobs
tainted the Republican message. And that was enough; Nate Silver’s analysis
always showed the election wasn’t as close as Republicans wished it to
be.
So it’s not as simple as all lefties hate nationhood and the working
class……. all righties are for nationhood and the huddled masses. Not in
America and not here. Entertaining as your rant is, disgraceful as the case
you quoted is there are plenty of horrible british born, white men who kill
their partners in dreadful ways. I agree we don’t need to import any more but
they don’t exactly come with a warning label. You make legitimate points about
asylum seekers being integrated into the principles of our country but I have
to say this just comes across as a generalised ideological rant based around
stereotypes ( the shiftless immigrant, the luvvie Islington set, patronising
lefties, I started to lose count!).

Amfortas November 13, 2012 at 09:30

The Pigs at the Public Trough issue is far and away out of hand. Whilst the
BBC fiaso is ongoing, Guido Fawkes has pointed out… Between January and July
£110,000-a-year Patten attended his Great Portland Street office on just 56
days. The BBC have told Guido that Patten is expected to work on Beeb business
for three to four days a week, and is required to be on call seven days a
week. Overall twelve-job Patten was recorded as working for just 78 days
during the period, with the BBC noting that 22 of those were merely attending
the odd meeting or answering phone calls from home.

He is but one of thousands who are fat on the earning coerced with the
threat of force from the taxpayer.

JimS November 13, 2012 at 09:19

A question that never seems to be answered by our political masters is “why
do we let them in in the first place?”.

I always found my experiences with US immigration officials quite stressful
– the default ‘official’ position being that all immigrants/visitors really
intend to stay permanently and it was your job to persuade them that you
didn’t, always mindful that if you failed you would be on the next plane
back.

Yet in the UK we appear to have lost any sense of sovereignty – it is
easier for a foreign power to extract our own nationals than it is to eject
the proven undesirable alien.

As you say there seems to be a desire to destroy the nation from within. Is
it a desire to emulate the USA? But there they felt the need to build a
nation, to fill the empty spaces; Europe has its nations and essentially no
empty spaces so why? The ‘American Dream’ is falling apart now anyway, new
immigrants arrive in greater numbers than before and see little need to adapt.
Numbers and the Internet mean they can retain their own culture and don’t need
to become American-Americans. Similarly when Russian Jews were allowed to
emigrate to Israel they pointed their satellite dishes towards Russia,
retaining their national culture within a Jewish state.

Is there a deliberate plan to destroy nations? I like to use the analogy of
the Club and the Hotel. People joined the Club to, say, play cricket. The
youngsters played about behind the stand, they went on to play the game, they
retired and kept score. Everyone had common cause. With the Hotel everyone is
welcome. You stay for as short or long a time as you wish. The Hotel provides
a service, you pay the bill. You owe the Hotel no loyalty; its obligations are
strictly contractual. You can stay at other Hotels, they can take in other
‘guests’. You care nothing for the other guests; they care nothing for you. It
certainly is a different way of doing things. Is it better? Were you asked?
But then, as Andrew Marr called you the other day you are probably just one of
“the longer-settled British”, with no culture and no homeland of your own.

davidb November 13, 2012 at 23:20

The reason we “let them in” is to provide cheap labour, to drive down
workers wages, and to deliberately alter the balance of voters in favour of
one particular political party.

What can we do? Nothing. We are on a path to our own destruction. Either
emigrate yourself or live with it. No political party wants to fix it – well
none that anyone sane would vote for. So perhaps we should just not bother
getting upset by these stories. C’est La Vie – as they say in the
Dordogne….

suspicious November 13, 2012 at 09:16

Excellent.