Pretty much pointless post as mentioned somewhere above. What I would really like to know from you is what exactly are you so proud of? This country's record regarding child poverty? Last time I read up on that ( couple of months ago) we were 23rd place somewhere behind Romania (I maybe corrected on that one!)! Even though I hold a british passport , this does NOT mean that my brain packed up. And maybe you would like a rainbow to have only one colour? Now what would that be? White ?
By the way, what is british? Seems to me that these islands are one hell of a mixture of saxons, picts, normans, romans, indo-germanic tribes, vikings and any other scandinavians and i guess the list could be extended
Heard it all before my friend, problem is it doesn't wash with me anymore as it is a little too simplistic for my taste !
Whilst you are of course correct that this country is composed of a veritable picnmix of tribes, your own analysis is also a little simplistic. The argument that Britain is a nation of immigrants is really rather disingenuous. Current levels of migration are unprecedented in modern British history.
More important still are the demoralised state of our nation and the nature of the immigration we are experiencing. Much comes from cultures very alien to our own, and the lack of any requirement to integrate and adapt to the host nation raises serious concerns.
My own feeling is that immigration can be of tremendous benefit under the kind of conditions summarised very neatly by Mungler. However, the current situation is very far indeed from this.
As for child poverty, this is brought about by a deliberate falsehood. It has been many centuries now since a German bishop realised that "the poor are a gold mine" and our modern poverty pimps have absorbed his wisdom with quasi-religious zeal. Small wonder when many of them accrue powers and responsibilities and earn salaries far in excess of their worth due to the existence of the poor. Regrettably for our worthy and beloved do-gooders, the poor in Britain are not remotely poor in the traditional sense, nor in a way that would be comprehensible to 95% of the world's population. So stubborn and ungrateful! Do they not realise what cosy sinecures are placed under threat by their rising affluence?
Fortunately, there is a ready solution, one of which Uncle Joe himself could have been proud. Simply redefine poverty to mean relative poverty, and mercy of mercies the poor will always be with us! Think what a large and valuable industry is thus preserved for future generations!
As a bonus, this gives an opportunity for the flourishing of nonsensical notions, such as the one that child poverty is worse in Britain than it is in Romania. Consider that, using our current definition, a millionaire would be counted as poor, as long as there were sufficient numbers of multi-millionaires living in the same country.
Robert
