Whitsun has a legal meaning. It is a term day, when contracts begin or end. It's rarely used now, but Whitsun and Martinmas were traditional flitting days.
The C of S uses Pentecost rather than Whit, and I suspect the other Scottish churches do likewise.
Hallowe'en. It's been a thing in Scotland for centuries. And yet, every Hallowe'en someone will opine that it's an American import.
See also, using "gotten" as a word.
Halloween was a thing in England in the 70s at least, whatever anyone may claim
Highlight of an Irish childhood in the 50s. You got to bring in the bit of pig iron from the yard and cover the hearth rug with shards of nut shell. Best - and rarest - was getting a Brazil out in one piece.
Hallowe'en. It's been a thing in Scotland for centuries. And yet, every Hallowe'en someone will opine that it's an American import.
I once saw an op-ed in a Canadian newspaper by a Canuck living in England, who lamented that, due to US cultural imperialism(or some such), the wonderful English tradition of Guy Fawkes Day was being overshadowed by the American import Halloween.
All well and good, but if you're gonna whine about the victimization of the English, you might wanna find a less ironic example than a holiday rooted in beating the crap out of religious minorities.
There's a piece by Dickens lamenting the decay of May Day celebrations in the 1830s.
I suspect, if you looked hard enough, you could find some rabid ethno-nationalist raving about the displacement of maypoles by Diwali or Eid. But customs and festivals come and go all the time, social culture never has been monolithic and unchanging.
We certainly did Hallowe'en (with han hapostrophe – I very much regret its demise) in the 50s and 60s – on the Wirral but drawing on my dad's memories from Lancashire. It involved doing fun things with apples, as I recall. Attempting to bite one suspended from a string while blindfolded, and attempting to spear one from a bowl of water with a fork held in the mouth.
Speaking as one of those people from the U.S. with the spreading Halloween tradition, that is a way we celebrate the holiday too. I remember doing it as a child.
Speaking as one of those people from the U.S. with the spreading Halloween tradition, that is a way we celebrate the holiday too. I remember doing it as a child.
Good point. To what extent (if any) do Jenrick, Braverman, and the rest, recognise any such distinction?
They seem to want to build a Big, Beautiful Wall, so to speak, to keep anyone and everyone out, despite the patent lunacy of such a position.
If this is the case, they are not doing it very well. The population of the UK has risen by over 5 million since 2010 and this is mainly due to immigration.
Good point. To what extent (if any) do Jenrick, Braverman, and the rest, recognise any such distinction?
They seem to want to build a Big, Beautiful Wall, so to speak, to keep anyone and everyone out, despite the patent lunacy of such a position.
If this is the case, they are not doing it very well. The population of the UK has risen by over 5 million since 2010 and this is mainly due to immigration.
Well, they're slightly constrained by things like international law, the ratio of workers to retired in an aging population and skills shortages which mean that while they're giving the anti-immigration dogwhistles they know as well as anyone that they actually need people to come here.
Good point. To what extent (if any) do Jenrick, Braverman, and the rest, recognise any such distinction?
They seem to want to build a Big, Beautiful Wall, so to speak, to keep anyone and everyone out, despite the patent lunacy of such a position.
If this is the case, they are not doing it very well. The population of the UK has risen by over 5 million since 2010 and this is mainly due to immigration.
Well, they're slightly constrained by things like international law, the ratio of workers to retired in an aging population and skills shortages which mean that while they're giving the anti-immigration dogwhistles they know as well as anyone that they actually need people to come here.
Never the less the 5 million rise disproves the myth that the government has been against immigration.
Cameron's government set themselves a target of no more than 100,000 immigrants per year which is ridiculously low.
Clearly they didn't meet the target they set themselves.
Nor has their overall message about immigration been anything other than negative. Saying that the government has been publically against immigration seems justified.
I'm not sure that I would say they haven't been effective in opposing immigration either though, as that implies to me that immigration is a bad thing overall that one would want to be effective against.
You fail to see my point, which is that *illegal immigration* has been discussed on these boards ad nauseam. What I understand by the term is neither here nor there.
I suppose what I am saying is that their incompetence, is not proof of their lack of malice.
Being against illegal immigration is no proof of malice
Surely the government itself has made claims that it is effectively controlling immigration?
I can't quote chapter and verse, but maybe someone can come up with a link.
As to *illegal immigration*, I think we've been round this mulberry bush before.
Don't you understand that it's illegal to enter the country other than through the normal channels ?
Don't you understand that if it wasn't made impossible for them to enter the country through the "normal" (I'd prefer "usual" myself) channels, it wouldn't be necessary to resort to "abnormal" (or "unusual") channels, would it?
I think the UN state that asylum seekers are entitled to irregular entry to countries, if regular ones are not allowed. Of course, the govt don't care.
I suppose what I am saying is that their incompetence, is not proof of their lack of malice.
Being against illegal immigration is no proof of malice
Surely the government itself has made claims that it is effectively controlling immigration?
I can't quote chapter and verse, but maybe someone can come up with a link.
As to *illegal immigration*, I think we've been round this mulberry bush before.
Don't you understand that it's illegal to enter the country other than through the normal channels ?
Don't you understand that if it wasn't made impossible for them to enter the country through the "normal" (I'd prefer "usual" myself) channels, it wouldn't be necessary to resort to "abnormal" (or "unusual") channels, would it?
There must be legal routes because about 200,000 used the routes last year
I suppose what I am saying is that their incompetence, is not proof of their lack of malice.
Being against illegal immigration is no proof of malice
Surely the government itself has made claims that it is effectively controlling immigration?
I can't quote chapter and verse, but maybe someone can come up with a link.
As to *illegal immigration*, I think we've been round this mulberry bush before.
Don't you understand that it's illegal to enter the country other than through the normal channels ?
No. It isn't, as long as you travel for the purposes of claiming asylum when you arrive (that 200k figure you quote conflates a number of different categories of migrants).
@Telford this deliberate obtuseness is trolling, a violation of the first commandment. You have been warned about this before. I am giving you two weeks shoreleave,
I see that our beloved immigration minister Jenrick has (predictably) rubbished what ++Welby has just said.
I know who I'd rather believe, but hey...
Bearing in mind a Hostly reminder from a while back, I don't seem to be able to find much in the way of reaction from those most affected by the tories' evil bill.
There's plenty of comment from this side, as it were, but it would be instructive to know what migrants (or would-be migrants) think.
I'll see if I can scare up some resources - people's first hand accounts wont be in yet for a brand new law but the responses of the communities most affected by it and similar legislation give a place to start.
At a first glance it looks like the Sudanese community feel affected by this and have things to say about it
Dr Ashraf Abdelfatah, a long-standing member of the Sudanese community in the local area, writes:
As a member of the Sudanese community in the UK and the grandson of the first President of the Sovereign Council of Sudan, I am writing to express our deep concern for the situation in Sudan.
Tens of thousands of Sudanese people have been displaced and are currently without security, looking for a safe place to harbour. We are particularly worried about the plight of Sudanese medics who worked with NHS, and who were left with no help. It is unclear if this situation is still continuing, but we urge the UK government to take immediate action to address the needs of these valuable medical professionals.
We are calling on the UK government to deploy a similar plan to the one they used for Ukraine, in order to provide support and assistance to those who have been affected by the conflict in Sudan. We also request that the UK government work towards family reunions for those who have strong contacts in the UK.
Above all, we urge the UK government to play its international role in stopping the bloodshed and finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Sudan.
Raga Ahmad of the London-based Sudanese Community and Information Centre (SCIC), said: “We are treated differently to Ukrainians. Colour and race should not matter when there is a war. The prime minister [Rishi Sunak] needs to answer, ‘What is the difference between a Ukrainian refugee and a Sudanese refugee?’”
This European Council on Refugees and Exiles report addresses the plight of Albanians who are also affected by this
UK: Coastguard “Effectively” Ignores Distress Calls of People Crossing the Channel, Home Office Describes Return of Albanians as “Milestone” While Albanian Prime Minister Denounces UK, Officials Told to Look at “All Options” to House People Caught in Backlog
There might also be room for comparing with other similar approaches on migration and asylum elsewhere in the world and seeing what survivors of those have to say.
I think international bodies whose job it is is to represent the rights and voices of refugees and asylum seekers might be worth linking to as well if they have things to say about how this affects the people they represent and have been listening to how this affects them.
In the papers today the Archbishop of Canterbury is quoted as saying 'we can't take everyone....nor should we '.
If he did say that then he said what I had found myself wondering at times -but embarrassed to say so.
In the papers today the Archbishop of Canterbury is quoted as saying 'we can't take everyone....nor should we '.
The Archbishop's point was that it's no good talking about stopping or welcoming refugees without also addressing the conflicts and climate crisis that make people into refugees.
In the papers today the Archbishop of Canterbury is quoted as saying 'we can't take everyone....nor should we '.
The Archbishop's point was that it's no good talking about stopping or welcoming refugees without also addressing the conflicts and climate crisis that make people into refugees.
He certainly said that in the report to which I linked earlier. I have no doubt that some news outlets will find it convenient to twist his words, or to misquote them, or to take them out of context.
@Merry Vole - can you provide a link to whichever paper you saw those words in? Even if it should be the Daily Wail...
Currently, 80% of refugees are still in the global south, protected by the poorest countries in the world. Of course, we cannot take everyone and nor should we, but this Bill has no sense at all of the long-term and of the global nature of the challenge that the world faces. It ignores the reality that migration must be engaged with at source, as well as in the Channel, as if we, as a country, were unrelated to the rest of the world.
My italics.
I take the ABC as saying that we can't take in the 80% in the global south etc., but YMMV. What he does point out is that refugees are an international, or global, issue.
Mind you, Brexit has ensured that we (England, at any rate) do indeed see ourselves as unrelated to the rest of the world...except when it comes to World-Beating Archaic Feudal Flummery.
Thanks @Bishops Finger and @BroJames .
I can't remember which paper it was because I glance at the front pages on the BBC website and they disappear after a short while. Probably a tabloid. But nevertheless I don't think those ten words of the ABC have been twisted.
I think it's curious; he could have edited out those words and the force of his argument would have been just the same. It's as though he was saying 'don't think I'm being ridiculous about this -I am sensible .' But a gift for any journalist.
Thanks @Bishops Finger and @BroJames .
I can't remember which paper it was because I glance at the front pages on the BBC website and they disappear after a short while. Probably a tabloid. But nevertheless I don't think those ten words of the ABC have been twisted.
I think it's curious; he could have edited out those words and the force of his argument would have been just the same. It's as though he was saying 'don't think I'm being ridiculous about this -I am sensible .' But a gift for any journalist.
Yes, I take your point. Not twisted, but taken out of context, is perhaps more accurate.
Still, I suppose it's obvious to anyone with more than one active brain cell that the UK couldn't feasibly take in every refugee in the world, but those who write for tabloids are often devoid of any brain cell active enough to even qualify them as a pot plant.
One of the links @Louise provided a while back shows up the UK's racist segregation policy for what it is - it's appalling to read of our evil government's attitude to refugees from Sudan, for example.
From The Merchant of Venice:
If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
Again, my italics.
Shylock could, of course, be speaking of virtually any immigrant or refugee, no matter what ethnic background.
To me the problem is that it still suggests that some people are saying we should take every refugee, which nobody is saying or has said. Even with hypothetically completely open borders, many refugees would go to other countries. It's a straw man.
To me the problem is that it still suggests that some people are saying we should take every refugee, which nobody is saying or has said. Even with hypothetically completely open borders, many refugees would go to other countries. It's a straw man.
Fully open borders means anyone who wants to can come here, so it's fair enough to assess the impact based on a high percentage choosing to do so rather than relying on a blase "they won't all come". Fully open borders would also mean that other countries would gain a strong motivation to help refugees get to the UK so that they won't have to deal with them themselves.
But if you don't think we should take every refugee then it would be good to know what you think the upper limit should be, and how you think they should be accommodated.
To me the problem is that it still suggests that some people are saying we should take every refugee, which nobody is saying or has said. Even with hypothetically completely open borders, many refugees would go to other countries. It's a straw man.
But those who are promoting this bill are saying that if you oppose it then you are just saying we’ll have to take every refugee, hence the archbishop making it clear that’s not what he means.
To me the problem is that it still suggests that some people are saying we should take every refugee, which nobody is saying or has said. Even with hypothetically completely open borders, many refugees would go to other countries. It's a straw man.
Fully open borders means anyone who wants to can come here, so it's fair enough to assess the impact based on a high percentage choosing to do so rather than relying on a blase "they won't all come". Fully open borders would also mean that other countries would gain a strong motivation to help refugees get to the UK so that they won't have to deal with them themselves.
But if you don't think we should take every refugee then it would be good to know what you think the upper limit should be, and how you think they should be accommodated.
I don't think the question is "how many". It's "at what degree of need do we set the bar?" Oppressive regimes and warring factions around the world aren't going to stop displacing people based on an arbitrary number that we set.
Comments
Halloween was a thing in England in the 70s at least, whatever anyone may claim
The C of S uses Pentecost rather than Whit, and I suspect the other Scottish churches do likewise.
Highlight of an Irish childhood in the 50s. You got to bring in the bit of pig iron from the yard and cover the hearth rug with shards of nut shell. Best - and rarest - was getting a Brazil out in one piece.
I once saw an op-ed in a Canadian newspaper by a Canuck living in England, who lamented that, due to US cultural imperialism(or some such), the wonderful English tradition of Guy Fawkes Day was being overshadowed by the American import Halloween.
All well and good, but if you're gonna whine about the victimization of the English, you might wanna find a less ironic example than a holiday rooted in beating the crap out of religious minorities.
Where do 1st May activities fit into the "people like us" spectrum?
I suspect, if you looked hard enough, you could find some rabid ethno-nationalist raving about the displacement of maypoles by Diwali or Eid. But customs and festivals come and go all the time, social culture never has been monolithic and unchanging.
Me too, We also went trick or treat for UNICEF.
If this is the case, they are not doing it very well. The population of the UK has risen by over 5 million since 2010 and this is mainly due to immigration.
Well, they're slightly constrained by things like international law, the ratio of workers to retired in an aging population and skills shortages which mean that while they're giving the anti-immigration dogwhistles they know as well as anyone that they actually need people to come here.
Never the less the 5 million rise disproves the myth that the government has been against immigration.
Clearly they didn't meet the target they set themselves.
Nor has their overall message about immigration been anything other than negative. Saying that the government has been publically against immigration seems justified.
I'm not sure that I would say they haven't been effective in opposing immigration either though, as that implies to me that immigration is a bad thing overall that one would want to be effective against.
I have never seen or heard this claim. Being against illegal immigration is no proof of malice
Surely the government itself has made claims that it is effectively controlling immigration?
I can't quote chapter and verse, but maybe someone can come up with a link.
As to *illegal immigration*, I think we've been round this mulberry bush before.
Indeed.
And what communities with lived experience of racism think of the current immigration climate?
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Don't you understand that if it wasn't made impossible for them to enter the country through the "normal" (I'd prefer "usual" myself) channels, it wouldn't be necessary to resort to "abnormal" (or "unusual") channels, would it?
There must be legal routes because about 200,000 used the routes last year
No. It isn't, as long as you travel for the purposes of claiming asylum when you arrive (that 200k figure you quote conflates a number of different categories of migrants).
@Telford this deliberate obtuseness is trolling, a violation of the first commandment. You have been warned about this before. I am giving you two weeks shoreleave,
Doublethink, Admin
/Admin
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/10/uk-migration-bill-impractical-and-morally-unacceptable-says-justin-welby
I don't know how much mileage there is in hoping that the Lords will at least reduce the evil and inhumane provisions of the bill, but we shall see.
What concerns me more, in a way, is Labour's apparent reluctance (once in power) to repeal these (and other) authoritarian measures.
I see that our beloved immigration minister Jenrick has (predictably) rubbished what ++Welby has just said.
I know who I'd rather believe, but hey...
Bearing in mind a Hostly reminder from a while back, I don't seem to be able to find much in the way of reaction from those most affected by the tories' evil bill.
There's plenty of comment from this side, as it were, but it would be instructive to know what migrants (or would-be migrants) think.
At a first glance it looks like the Sudanese community feel affected by this and have things to say about it
https://refugeesupportgroup.org.uk/sudan-solidarity/
This Observer article has a quote https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/07/home-office-accused-of-being-unashamedly-racist-towards-sudanese
This European Council on Refugees and Exiles report addresses the plight of Albanians who are also affected by this
https://ecre.org/uk-coastguard-effectively-ignores-distress-calls-of-people-crossing-the-channel-home-office-describes-return-of-albanians-as-milestone-while-albanian-prime-minist/
(https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/organisation/ecre-european-council-refugees-exiles_en)
It has quotes from the Albanian prime minister Edi Rama and linked to an interview with him here
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/albania-pm-uk-nervous-breakdown-immigration-b2329821.html
There might also be room for comparing with other similar approaches on migration and asylum elsewhere in the world and seeing what survivors of those have to say.
I think international bodies whose job it is is to represent the rights and voices of refugees and asylum seekers might be worth linking to as well if they have things to say about how this affects the people they represent and have been listening to how this affects them.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
If he did say that then he said what I had found myself wondering at times -but embarrassed to say so.
He certainly said that in the report to which I linked earlier. I have no doubt that some news outlets will find it convenient to twist his words, or to misquote them, or to take them out of context.
@Merry Vole - can you provide a link to whichever paper you saw those words in? Even if it should be the Daily Wail...
Currently, 80% of refugees are still in the global south, protected by the poorest countries in the world. Of course, we cannot take everyone and nor should we, but this Bill has no sense at all of the long-term and of the global nature of the challenge that the world faces. It ignores the reality that migration must be engaged with at source, as well as in the Channel, as if we, as a country, were unrelated to the rest of the world.
My italics.
I take the ABC as saying that we can't take in the 80% in the global south etc., but YMMV. What he does point out is that refugees are an international, or global, issue.
Mind you, Brexit has ensured that we (England, at any rate) do indeed see ourselves as unrelated to the rest of the world...except when it comes to World-Beating Archaic Feudal Flummery.
I can't remember which paper it was because I glance at the front pages on the BBC website and they disappear after a short while. Probably a tabloid. But nevertheless I don't think those ten words of the ABC have been twisted.
I think it's curious; he could have edited out those words and the force of his argument would have been just the same. It's as though he was saying 'don't think I'm being ridiculous about this -I am sensible .' But a gift for any journalist.
Yes, I take your point. Not twisted, but taken out of context, is perhaps more accurate.
Still, I suppose it's obvious to anyone with more than one active brain cell that the UK couldn't feasibly take in every refugee in the world, but those who write for tabloids are often devoid of any brain cell active enough to even qualify them as a pot plant.
One of the links @Louise provided a while back shows up the UK's racist segregation policy for what it is - it's appalling to read of our evil government's attitude to refugees from Sudan, for example.
From The Merchant of Venice:
If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
Again, my italics.
Shylock could, of course, be speaking of virtually any immigrant or refugee, no matter what ethnic background.
Fully open borders means anyone who wants to can come here, so it's fair enough to assess the impact based on a high percentage choosing to do so rather than relying on a blase "they won't all come". Fully open borders would also mean that other countries would gain a strong motivation to help refugees get to the UK so that they won't have to deal with them themselves.
But if you don't think we should take every refugee then it would be good to know what you think the upper limit should be, and how you think they should be accommodated.
They tend to be regarded as one group, at least in some quarters, but the distinction is worth bearing in mind.
It was a lot harder to travel long distances prior to the 20th century.
I don't think the question is "how many". It's "at what degree of need do we set the bar?" Oppressive regimes and warring factions around the world aren't going to stop displacing people based on an arbitrary number that we set.