• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Cleese: London is no longer an English city.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grant said:
Can you point out what Cleese said that makes him a 'bigot' and who these victims of his bigotry were?
Click to expand...


One can only guess what Cleese refers to as "English", if it's skin color, then the people who are very English from their birth to their way of living, their speech and their outlook, but happen to not be white, will be the subject of his bigotry. They are not "victims", thank god, because a bigot's words need not victimize anyone. Speaking as if people who are not White but who were born in London, lived in London their whole life, participate in London society, contribute to London's communities and its growth are not English is bigoted.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Not muddled.

That's how I see it. The "anti-multiculuralists" (fringe right) rarely speaks of positive multiculturalism (interculturalism). So why am I to believe there's anything more to it than a strawman to deceive and create hostility? The fringe left does it with class warfare. It's a misnomer, a strawman and a scapegoat. Such is racism, xenophobia and nationalism today (I'm not sure of the appropriate order for the triads). A small percentage of the population engages in it (in every group), some as useful idiots and some as one of the aforementioned dysfunctional obsessions.

My degree is Interdisciplinary Ecology and not Multidisciplinary Ecology for a reason. It's ironic that the fringe-right uses a strawman scapegoat so aptly named. Would you like to argue regarding the terminology and which term more accurately describes reality? Anyway, biodiversity is good for ecology, government and culture of all sorts. To paint diversity as a negative is, in fact, deceitful and hostile.

Do you find it acceptable to demonize diversity. Is there any part of that which you do not understand.
Click to expand...

Call it zibbiiisingiibimbooba. It doesn't change the fact that Alexa was talking about cultures co-existing, overlapping and integrating with each other as a definition of multiculturalism - which by definition also include the acceptance of diversity. The people who oppose multiculturalism (for some strange reason) like to claim that multicultural has failed, when in fact, I've lived on 4 continents and 6 different countries, besides visiting many others, and they all have a mixture of different cultures co-existing, overlapping and integrating with each other to some extend or another.
 
NoC_T said:
Cleese is a product of his time. A septuagenarian with a world view coloured by the world he grew up in. Most especially, by an England still enamoured of the Empire.

It's comes as no surprise to me that he equates multi-culturalism with something odious.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he's saying, and I find it hard to believe that Cleese supports or even approves of British Imperialism. I think he's just old, addled, and showing some of that upper-class world view that he is subjected to given his path in life. Someone who was born in Somerset, went to Cambridge, made millions from making fun of his own culture then move away from his home country to live in Hollywood. Well, I don't expect his opinion to be base on the reality on the ground of the people of London.
 
NoC_T said:
In what regard do you recognise some democratic deficit in the UK? What is your baseline for comparison?
Click to expand...

For one - with regard the Lisbon treaty - note of the 27 member states of the EU only Ireland was given a referendum on it, twice. Note the Irish people rejected the Lisbon treaty and were compelled to vote on it again. Also note the Lisbon treaty was a revamped version of EU Constitution which the Dutch and French rejected in their referendums.

This brings us to UK, and the UK was deprived of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. If you visit ReferendumList.com you will find a total list of how MPs voted. The majority of MPs voted to deprive the British people a referendum on the issue. They voted to deprive the British people of their voice on a matter that concerned our own country, the UK.

Going further, I and others had been fighting for an EU in/out referendum for very long time with polls consistently showing the vast majority of British people want the UK to withdraw from the EU. There are now over 170 MPs (cross-party) who have started to do what they were elected to do; be the peoples voice and represent the people. Yet the Prime Minister has now openly said he would not support any EU in/out referendum with campaigns gaining momentum to force him to do so. Even a national newspaper finally joined the crusade, and others have started to voice similar calls, but still the Prime Minister allows many of our laws and regulations to be dictated by the EU Parliament in Brussels.

I supplied a link to my own article in previous post. However, remember I wrote it, so I advise you surf the net for further information.
 
Phoenix One UK said:
For one - with regard the Lisbon treaty - note of the 27 member states of the EU only Ireland was given a referendum on it, twice. Note the Irish people rejected the Lisbon treaty and were compelled to vote on it again. Also note the Lisbon treaty was a revamped version of EU Constitution which the Dutch and French rejected in their referendums.

This brings us to UK, and the UK was deprived of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. If you visit ReferendumList.com you will find a total list of how MPs voted. The majority of MPs voted to deprive the British people a referendum on the issue. They voted to deprive the British people of their voice on a matter that concerned our own country, the UK.

Going further, I and others had been fighting for an EU in/out referendum for very long time with polls consistently showing the vast majority of British people want the UK to withdraw from the EU. There are now over 170 MPs (cross-party) who have started to do what they were elected to do; be the peoples voice and represent the people. Yet the Prime Minister has now openly said he would not support any EU in/out referendum with campaigns gaining momentum to force him to do so. Even a national newspaper finally joined the crusade, and others have started to voice similar calls, but still the Prime Minister allows many of our laws and regulations to be dictated by the EU Parliament in Brussels.

I supplied a link to my own article in previous post. However, remember I wrote it, so I advise you surf the net for further information.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Phoenix. I consider my question more than answered.

Do you not believe that EU membership outweighs some misplaced nationalistic fervour, for the reinstitution of full sovereignty?
 
NoC_T said:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Phoenix. I consider my question more than answered.

Do you not believe that EU membership outweighs some misplaced nationalistic fervour, for the reinstitution of full sovereignty?
Click to expand...

NoC_T said:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Phoenix. I consider my question more than answered.

Do you not believe that EU membership outweighs some misplaced nationalistic fervour, for the reinstitution of full sovereignty?
Click to expand...

I am a British subject and refuse to recognise the EU, and I resent the EU dictating British policy. I believe many in USA would feel the same way if your government surrendered soverignty - in whole or part - to any forign power. I feel the same way about the UK. Note there is a major difference between being anti-EU and anti-European, and I mention this because it has come up on numerous occations within debates in UK. One does not even imply the other.

Note the Commonwealth consists of 54 sovereign nations, and not one dictates political policy to another. One only has to visit the United Nations web site and view the treaties contained therein to see agreements can be made and conflic avoided if the sovereignty of other nations are recognised and respected. However, it is not a perfect solution, but, in saying that, neither is the EU. One only has to turn an eye to Greece for perfect example. Civil unrest, protests, and even strikes are become more frequent across Europe, and much of this can be laid at the feet of the EU, especially the flawed euro single currency. There is even the risk of insurrection in some meber states, and that risk is very high in Greece.

The biggest threat I see to UK at present comes from our own government. They continually ignore the people, including the majority.

The EU and even the euro are political projects imposed on the masses without even consulting the population. Note the British people were not even consulted on UK membership to EEC (Common Market) in 1972, but were asked if they wanted to remain in 1975 referendum. Note the EEC was with regard trade with Europe.

Note Ireland alone had a referendum on Lisbon treaty, twice given Ireland rejected it the first time round. That is, a country with population with 4.4 million people decided the fate for population of over 500 million people in 27 member states.

I hope this answers your question. Please note I cannot speak for everone in UK, but know my views given represent those of majority in UK.
 
Phoenix One UK said:
I am a British subject and refuse to recognise the EU, and I resent the EU dictating British policy. I believe many in USA would feel the same way if your government surrendered soverignty - in whole or part - to any forign power. I feel the same way about the UK. Note there is a major difference between being anti-EU and anti-European, and I mention this because it has come up on numerous occations within debates in UK. One does not even imply the other.

Note the Commonwealth consists of 54 sovereign nations, and not one dictates political policy to another. One only has to visit the United Nations web site and view the treaties contained therein to see agreements can be made and conflic avoided if the sovereignty of other nations are recognised and respected. However, it is not a perfect solution, but, in saying that, neither is the EU. One only has to turn an eye to Greece for perfect example. Civil unrest, protests, and even strikes are become more frequent across Europe, and much of this can be laid at the feet of the EU, especially the flawed euro single currency. There is even the risk of insurrection in some meber states, and that risk is very high in Greece.

The biggest threat I see to UK at present comes from our own government. They continually ignore the people, including the majority.

The EU and even the euro are political projects imposed on the masses without even consulting the population. Note the British people were not even consulted on UK membership to EEC (Common Market) in 1972, but were asked if they wanted to remain in 1975 referendum. Note the EEC was with regard trade with Europe.

Note Ireland alone had a referendum on Lisbon treaty, twice given Ireland rejected it the first time round. That is, a country with population with 4.4 million people decided the fate for population of over 500 million people in 27 member states.

I hope this answers your question. Please note I cannot speak for everone in UK, but know my views given represent those of majority in UK.
Click to expand...
We likely won't agree as to the EU's importance and validity here. Most of those difficulties you perceive as being negative, I view as inevitable growing pains. Lest we forget, the EU is an ongoing project, far from completion. You'd have to allow as how any such ambitious undertaking would invite a plethora of unforeseen problems, and even dangers.

I'm pro-EU since, on the plus side, I believe that for one thing, membership of this planet's foremost and most powerful economy can be no bad thing. Even if in terms only of GDP, the EU now represents the absolute vanguard of economic excellence. Even the US is now secondary to it. And China has an economic clout around one third of it. The Euro has replaced the Dollar as the reserve global currency. This, even in light of it being incomplete, and beset with obstacles. Imagine how much more powerful it would be, were it running seamlessly. With greater wealth, we find more numerous possibilities for social development, running the entire gamut of advantages, from such as health and education, to environmental conservation and defence.

The project is a work in progress. All these setbacks will iron themselves out in due course. When they do, Europeans shall be able to boast superiority in just about every field of endeavour.

Nationalism and restrictive sovereignty are surely not the answer to Europe's woes. The entire history of the region is awash with the blood of mutual competition. The same conditions that gave rise to it's bewildering catalogue of armed conflict and persecution. You remove the national component, and these things fall away like snake scales. Since the inception of the EU, Europe has (with the exception of the Yugoslavia debacle) enjoyed it's longest period of historic peace.

For myself, the benefits (both immediately apparent and potential) of the EU far outweigh the cold comfort of hoisting aloft a flag at a rally.
 
Phoenix One UK said:
I am a British subject and refuse to recognise the EU, and I resent the EU dictating British policy. I believe many in USA would feel the same way if your government surrendered soverignty - in whole or part - to any forign power. I feel the same way about the UK. Note there is a major difference between being anti-EU and anti-European, and I mention this because it has come up on numerous occations within debates in UK. One does not even imply the other.

Note the Commonwealth consists of 54 sovereign nations, and not one dictates political policy to another. One only has to visit the United Nations web site and view the treaties contained therein to see agreements can be made and conflic avoided if the sovereignty of other nations are recognised and respected. However, it is not a perfect solution, but, in saying that, neither is the EU. One only has to turn an eye to Greece for perfect example. Civil unrest, protests, and even strikes are become more frequent across Europe, and much of this can be laid at the feet of the EU, especially the flawed euro single currency. There is even the risk of insurrection in some meber states, and that risk is very high in Greece.

The biggest threat I see to UK at present comes from our own government. They continually ignore the people, including the majority.

The EU and even the euro are political projects imposed on the masses without even consulting the population. Note the British people were not even consulted on UK membership to EEC (Common Market) in 1972, but were asked if they wanted to remain in 1975 referendum. Note the EEC was with regard trade with Europe.

Note Ireland alone had a referendum on Lisbon treaty, twice given Ireland rejected it the first time round. That is, a country with population with 4.4 million people decided the fate for population of over 500 million people in 27 member states.

I hope this answers your question. Please note I cannot speak for everone in UK, but know my views given represent those of majority in UK.
Click to expand...

That's very well said, Phoenix One UK, and there should be more Brits, and Europeans for that matter, speaking out on what has happened to their continent. It might well be too late but your voices should certainly be heard. The rabble will certainly try to shut you down though.

LETHALLY LEISURED :: SteynOnline
 
nonpareil said:
London was not free of riot is the 1970's. And yobs have existed in London during his time, before his time, and will continue to exist in London after his time. The Monty Pythons were from Oxbridge - they were an elite group - the uneducated hooligans would be as unfamiliar to him then as they must be to him now.
Click to expand...

The Yobs were restricted to a very specific are while the rest of the country remained relatively crime free and quite peaceful.

The irony here is that the Monty Python was good because they make fun of British culture, showing some of the stupidities and hypocrisies that must exist in every culture, being rude and disrespectful of authority is a mark of their comedy, and he's now complaining about the old culture not being what he was used to.
Click to expand...

The true irony is that Monty Python would never be able to joke about Islam or they would need 24 hour security. They would likely be murdered. We saw what happened with cartoons in Denmark and the same thing would happen in the UK. There is a self censorship now in the UK that simply wasn't there in Cleese's time.
 
nonpareil said:
To be replaced by others who love it enough to stay (or wish they could if it weren't for work). Way better trade-off for London overall.
Click to expand...

History would show that there were not the riots in the 1950's, 60's, or 70's that there are today. It can be demonstrated that crime has also increased dramatically. What benefits you claim these changes have offered remains unclear.
 
NoC_T said:
We likely won't agree as to the EU's importance and validity here. Most of those difficulties you perceive as being negative, I view as inevitable growing pains. Lest we forget, the EU is an ongoing project, far from completion. You'd have to allow as how any such ambitious undertaking would invite a plethora of unforeseen problems, and even dangers.

I'm pro-EU since, on the plus side, I believe that for one thing, membership of this planet's foremost and most powerful economy can be no bad thing. Even if in terms only of GDP, the EU now represents the absolute vanguard of economic excellence. Even the US is now secondary to it. And China has an economic clout around one third of it. The Euro has replaced the Dollar as the reserve global currency. This, even in light of it being incomplete, and beset with obstacles. Imagine how much more powerful it would be, were it running seamlessly. With greater wealth, we find more numerous possibilities for social development, running the entire gamut of advantages, from such as health and education, to environmental conservation and defence.

The project is a work in progress. All these setbacks will iron themselves out in due course. When they do, Europeans shall be able to boast superiority in just about every field of endeavour.

Nationalism and restrictive sovereignty are surely not the answer to Europe's woes. The entire history of the region is awash with the blood of mutual competition. The same conditions that gave rise to it's bewildering catalogue of armed conflict and persecution. You remove the national component, and these things fall away like snake scales. Since the inception of the EU, Europe has (with the exception of the Yugoslavia debacle) enjoyed it's longest period of historic peace.

For myself, the benefits (both immediately apparent and potential) of the EU far outweigh the cold comfort of hoisting aloft a flag at a rally.
Click to expand...

Luckily, the Chinese are now there to assist you with your "growing pains".

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.ac61265bedd2a8109263975ce8276c0c.471
 
Grant said:
History would show that there were not the riots in the 1950's, 60's, or 70's that there are today. It can be demonstrated that crime has also increased dramatically. What benefits you claim these changes have offered remains unclear.
Click to expand...

no mass riots during the Thatcher era? Think again!
 
Grant said:
Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979.

This is what I said:
Click to expand...

so what are you saying the riots in the 80's dont count? Also are you forggeting about the notting hill riots? The St pauls riots?
 
Higgins86 said:
so what are you saying the riots in the 80's dont count? Also are you forggeting about the notting hill riots? The St pauls riots?
Click to expand...

Please try and comprehend completely what is being posted prior to responding.

We were not discussing Margaret Thatcher or the Notting Hill riots. Try starting another thread on that topic if it interests you.

.
 
Grant said:
Please try and comprehend completely what is being posted prior to responding.

We were not discussing Margaret Thatcher or the Notting Hill riots. Try starting another thread on that topic if it interests you.

.
Click to expand...


"Apparently Cleese feels that he didn't abandon as country so much as his country abandoned him. He is looking at the London of his youth with some nostalgia, a riot free London with a familiar culture. He has discovered, as so many have, that you cannot go home again. And he never can."

a riot free London is what you said...notting hill is in London! I can even go back to the Chartists for evidence of riots in the UK!
 
Higgins86 said:
"Apparently Cleese feels that he didn't abandon as country so much as his country abandoned him. He is looking at the London of his youth with some nostalgia, a riot free London with a familiar culture. He has discovered, as so many have, that you cannot go home again. And he never can."

a riot free London is what you said...notting hill is in London! I can even go back to the Chartists for evidence of riots in the UK!
Click to expand...

It seems to me you are being deliberately stupid here in an effort to derail the thread. John Cleese was born in 1939 so his "youth" would not extend to the 1980's. He would have been 40 in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher came to power.
 
Grant said:
It seems to me you are being deliberately stupid here in an effort to derail the thread. John Cleese was born in 1939 so his "youth" would not extend to the 1980's. He would have been 40 in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher came to power.
Click to expand...

his youth would def extend to 1958 the year of the notting hill riots...
 
'I mean, I love having different cultures around. But when the parent culture kind of dissipates, you're left thinking, "Well, what's going on?"'
True, I wouldn't particularly like it if England became entirely "multicultural", I mean, that would just be strange. But, what are you going to do to stop it? Some people think abusing foreigners is worth it if it gets rid of them, but that's a terrible and immoral idea. So, unless we can think of a moral way of eradicating all culture from the planet that is not English, I don't see what we can do.


Maybe set up the British Empire again?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Necro'd thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom